Re: Monthly Folding Challenge: February 2014
Posted: February 14th, 2014, 12:35 pm
I disagree. the technique is similar, but the grid is different. I don't see it as the same model.
if different variations on similar theme are automatically going to be looked down on as designs of the first person who went that route, that completely negates the effort of the people who came later, and possibly didn't even know about the original. Here it's obvious the pyramids were created independently.
I don't think there is any other way how to create a multipple-level pyramid, do you?
How can jo nakashima claim the rights to the design but origamigeek can't? I am pretty sure Andrey Ermakov's much more complex pyramid which uses the same technique came before Jo Nakashima's one. so if anything, it should be called Andrey Ermakov's design, except it's not.
My treefrog uses a grafted frog base, and on top of that, it uses the same reference point for the grafts like Robert Lang's treefrog, and I didn't even have origami design secrets when I designed mine. I came up with it independently. The designer's credit belongs to Lang as much as it belongs to me. If you look at our frogs, it's clearly obvious they are distinct models.
the same applies here. the pyramids look distinct. You can rarely avoid convergence of ideas. similarly-minded people are going to arrive at similar solutions to similar problems.
how many beetle designs from blintzed bird/frog base are out there? tens of them at least. are all of them just one design?
how many people use wet-folding other than yoshizawa? are all wet folded models automatically Yoshizawa's?
"you can't use wetfolding, that's yoshizawa's thing!" I dare you to say that to somebody and wait for their response.
it's the same thing. it's good and fair to mention the people who've pioneered a technique, but the technique exists to be used by other people, and those people shouldn't be looked down upon for using it.
just my two cents.
if different variations on similar theme are automatically going to be looked down on as designs of the first person who went that route, that completely negates the effort of the people who came later, and possibly didn't even know about the original. Here it's obvious the pyramids were created independently.
I don't think there is any other way how to create a multipple-level pyramid, do you?
How can jo nakashima claim the rights to the design but origamigeek can't? I am pretty sure Andrey Ermakov's much more complex pyramid which uses the same technique came before Jo Nakashima's one. so if anything, it should be called Andrey Ermakov's design, except it's not.
My treefrog uses a grafted frog base, and on top of that, it uses the same reference point for the grafts like Robert Lang's treefrog, and I didn't even have origami design secrets when I designed mine. I came up with it independently. The designer's credit belongs to Lang as much as it belongs to me. If you look at our frogs, it's clearly obvious they are distinct models.
the same applies here. the pyramids look distinct. You can rarely avoid convergence of ideas. similarly-minded people are going to arrive at similar solutions to similar problems.
how many beetle designs from blintzed bird/frog base are out there? tens of them at least. are all of them just one design?
how many people use wet-folding other than yoshizawa? are all wet folded models automatically Yoshizawa's?
"you can't use wetfolding, that's yoshizawa's thing!" I dare you to say that to somebody and wait for their response.
it's the same thing. it's good and fair to mention the people who've pioneered a technique, but the technique exists to be used by other people, and those people shouldn't be looked down upon for using it.
just my two cents.
