Great rose, might be helpful for you!

[origami_8]

Hm, if eleven models count as variety of works, maybe I should consider making a book as well, lol.

[rdrutel]

Eleven models or minor modifications?

[JVega]

In anyway, starting a new flame war would not help

I hope Phu Tran will change his mind and help us to fold his beautiful rose. If his decision is to publish a book, we have to wait until then.

You can also try to modify the kawasaki rose to get a similar rose. You only need to use angles of 22.5º (you can see this at the CP) and shape it at the end. The rose is also closed in the same way as kawasaki version 2 (diagrams are available on internet). That may be enough to fold it.

[origamimasterjared]

You can also try to modify the kawasaki rose to get a similar rose. You only need to use angles of 22.5º (you can see this at the CP) and shape it at the end. The rose is also closed in the same way as kawasaki version 2 (diagrams are available on internet). That may be enough to fold it.

Not quite. At least not in the version I learned from Phu. It used angles of 26.5650512˚. i.e. the crease from a corner to the midpoint of another side.

[Foldingsmith]

The person making the video could have at least given attribution to the designer. Would have been nice to seek the creator's permission as to whether or not a "how to" video would receive his blessings. Isn't this at least common courtesy?

I found that video long time ago searching for "Phu Tran rose". These words appeared at video title, that's more credit than he is giving to Kawasaki.

He's always given credit to Kawasaki. But people seem to selectively hear what they wish to hear; or believe what they wish to believe.

It's a shame how all of this got started because in my opinion, a good folder and a good person's name is now sullied.

Sure, Phu can take some responsibility in that. But he's only human and was hurt by the incident. Some of the reaction on the part of others only compounded matters in a negative direction.

Phu shared the cp openly just as he was willing to teach anyone his rose design. This was before someone here decided to draw up and distribute self-made diagrams after Phu had asked him not to.

That's not true. Phu got angry after somebody draw a diagram, not before.

Mmm...don't see how you're contradicting what I wrote. Is it in regards to my last sentence cited? From what I recall, and I did not see some of the stuff that was deleted, Phu had made it known that he wanted to be the one to draw up diagrams of his own design.

And for the record, from my own personal experience, Phu is an extremely generous person. He always shared, always gave things away at the Westcoast Origami Guild. He always came with a new design he wanted to teach.

It is a shame that through the internet, based upon an isolated incident and one or two threads, Phu Tran seems to be a name synonymous with selfishness because he is now "overprotective" of his work. I'd say the "selfishness" is on the part of those who have decided that their personal needs outweigh respecting a designer's wish that "illegal" diagrams of his rose not be distributed.

If not for that, it's possible Phu would not have withdrawn himself from the origami community; we might have official and accurate diagrams (he has several variations of rose designs, btw; not just one), and we might all be happier for it and not bitter and resentful and spiteful.

He knew about the diagram when people started asking for that at the forum, and then he started a flame war.

Phu probably didn't handle things as tactfully as he could have; he had an emotional response. Others who piled on didn't help matters much.

After that, the guy who draw these diagrams is not sharing them anymore to avoid people getting angry.

The problem is, once those can of worms have been let out, there's no stuffing 'em back in. A YouTube commenter tried to leave two comments on my WCOG video (that first showcased the rose) offering viewers the "free" diagrams knowing full well Phu's request that they not be dispersed, as the guy made some disrespectful swipes at Phu.

And anyone who clicks around can see that those diagrams are still being distributed around.

Phu has given Kawasaki due credit; while folders like yourself who seem irked by Phu wanting to protect his work, seem to lash out at him by minimizing his "modification" of the kawasaki rose and putting into parentheses, "your creation". It's the height of disrespect on your part. Because he's no longer willing to openly share his design, folders such as yourself feel the need to trash the artist by trashing the design (saying it's nothing more than a mere modification of a kawasaki; if that's the case, quit coveting it so much and be happy with folding a Kawasaki, which are fine, perfect designs all unto themselves). What design isn't in a sense, a "modification" of previous works? Everyone builds upon the technology and techniques explored by artists who came before them.

Where's the credit to Mr. Kawasaki?

He's always spoken of it. I can't believe that based upon a relatively few comments by Phu on an internet forum, people all across the world think they know Phu and everything he's ever said about his rose, including the origins.

Phu's rose incorporates the Kawasaki twist-fold method to get the cylindrical shape; but from there, I think the similarities end; throw into that, the calyx and leaf design and you have a pretty original creation.

Not only the twist fold, the soul of the model, but the way the rose is closed is the same as kawasaki rose version 2.

He only changed the angle of the model to get longer petals, and added some little folds to them.

Great idea, of course, and a very beautiful model, but a discussion with non sense.

What if someone who learn the model directly from the creator teach it to someone? Should he or her be put in jail? Because in that case I should be sent there for teaching other people how to fold the Hsi-Hua fish, for instance...

Regards.

Well, I haven't been put in jail yet.

Phu went out of his way to teach me 3 versions of his rose; basically, private tutoring outside of the library group meetings. Why? Because he knew that I was going to OUSA that year and he wanted me to be able to teach other folders his designs, accurately.

After the whole diagram incident soured him he asked me not to teach it. Considering that I owe my knowledge of them to him, as a student and as his friend, I have honored that request. It's by choice. Not because I'd be in breach of any legal contract. It's about doing what is honorable; what is based upon friendship.


In my estimation, what Phu's done to his rose is more than just "minor modifications". Keep in mind as well, there is more than one rose.

I think we have two problems of perception here: one is the fallacy-belief that Phu doesn't give credit to Kawasaki. The second is to poo-poo what he's done as just "minor modifications" without adding anything significant and uniquely his own to a technique/method/kawasaki rose structure.

Eleven models or minor modifications?

Comments like this will surely inspire Phu to have a change of heart </sarcasm>

Should he have thicker skin? Not for me to judge. Just know that there are attitudes floating around out there that probably are counter-productive if you want to draw Phu Tran back into the fold.

Oh, and for the record, he has a lot more designs than just what's in his photo gallery.

[JVega]

Well, each person has his own reasons, so that's a Phu Tran's decision, but I think he should not get angry so easily each time anybody asks about his rose or anyone looking like that.

And just an advice: if there is no CP, the people who want to fold it has not any other option than trying to get these illegal diagrams.

[rdrutel]

Hey! Let's be as politically correct as possible! It is his "modified kawasaki rose" and not "his rose."

[Adam]

Phu went out of his way to teach me 3 versions of his rose; basically, private tutoring outside of the library group meetings. Why? Because he knew that I was going to OUSA that year and he wanted me to be able to teach other folders his designs, accurately.

This is somewhat confusing, in my opinion. Why would he be oh-so-willing to teach others how to fold the rose, but against diagrams? It's the exact same thing, but via a different medium. Please don't take the easy way out by saying "It's his wish and we should respect it".

Furthermore, the Phu Tran rose really is just based on minor modifications. The angle has changed. That's pretty much it. The twist is the same, the crimp folds for the extra petals are nearly the same and the locking mechanism is nearly identical as well. I'm not saying that makes it a bad model or anything, but I surely do not see him as a grand designer.

[origamimasterjared]

This is somewhat confusing, in my opinion. Why would he be oh-so-willing to teach others how to fold the rose, but against diagrams? It's the exact same thing, but via a different medium. Please don't take the easy way out by saying "It's his wish and we should respect it".

For the same reason when you send a diagram to OUSA they ask whether it's okay to publish in a book, publish in The Paper, publish online, teach in class, etc. It's like how Robert Lang's Maine Lobster was available in a BOS book, but not in the CD version.

Also, if you make a book, having the same contents available for free online will surely reduce sales on your book. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Sure it will generate interest, and the diehards will purchase anyhow. It's like the fuss over the unauthorized Satoshi Kamiya diagrams. I'd rather other people not diagram my work, unless they're going to make a whole book for me, and do them well. The fact is, the diagrams were incorrect (and still are). So now we have a set of incorrect, unauthorized diagrams floating about. This flat-out makes the designer look bad. Now his name is attached to something that really isn't his, but was meant to be his, and was not authorized by him. And not just not authorized, but specifically refused to give him permission. Phuc asked Phu if he could post up the diagrams, and Phu said NO. Then Phuc did it anyway. That is wrong.

Furthermore, the Phu Tran rose really is just based on minor modifications. The angle has changed. That's pretty much it. The twist is the same, the crimp folds for the extra petals are nearly the same and the locking mechanism is nearly identical as well.

No argument there. I do agree that Phu Tran's rose is really just a variation on Kawasaki's "new rose". A good one, but one which should still have Kawasaki's name prominently attached to it.

Phu overreacted. He reacted in anger. Because of this, his name has been tagged as super selfish. Now, while he is in no way the picture of unwitting generosity, he's still not the worst I've seen. And certainly not deserving of the malice I've seen for him on the net. It would be nice for the old not-angry Phu to come back to the world of origami though.

I believe had Phu cooled down before responding, this could all have been avoided. It's too late now, the damage is done. Diagrams, photos, videos are all over the net, many as a sheer act of defiance. Had this been handled in a more civil way, Phu would be realized as "that guy who made the really cool rose" instead of "that jerk who made a Kawasaki rose, called it his own, and won't share how he did it. What a jackass!" etc.

Both sides are at fault here, and it would be a shame for the bad blood to keep spilling.