Designing vs Folding

[Ben385]

I was thinking to myself the other day, which is more important- the design, or the folding? Some designers have amazing talent at creating models, but need other people who are better 'folders' to really bring out there greatness (e.g. Joshua Goutam, who designs endless model after model very skilfully, but are generally 'folded' better by others)

Or there's the other side of it- people who lack designing skill, but are able to masterfully recreate the works of others- for example Cecilia (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecilia13101/) who has sadly left the forum now. All of the models in her photostream are amazingly folded, but you'll notice that none of her own works pop up in there.

So today, I pose the question to you: what do you personally think the better skill is; being able to constuct incredibly well thought up bases and crease patterns, or to bring out the life and character of a piece through folding?

Feel free to both vote in the poll and leave written feedback

[joshuaorigami]

i say designing because without the design, there is no fold.

[origami_8]

It depends on what you want to achieve for yourself.
I'd say both skills are equally important but not everyone needs to be a great designer and superb folder at the same time.

Even though Joshua, some more patience while folding wouldn't hurt you.

[kevin89]

I'd say folding, because without folding, there is no designing. So I guess one can't exist without the other. But if you are talking about which skill, I don't know. It depends on what you want. With designing you become more well known ("famous" would be an over-statement), but with folding you actually get to make the piece of art. So it goes both ways. Great, now I'm not going to be able to get any sleep tonight.

[OrigamiMagiro]

As disclaimer, I am referring only to representational origami in this response.

I think being a good designer must stem from a deep understanding of how paper folds that can only really come from a mastery of folding. I think a mastery of folding and an understanding of how paper transforms is most important; a sort of precision and depth in understanding.

However, a mastery of folding and folding 'good' exhibition models are two different things, the latter being mostly subjective. For example, I think John Montroll has an excellent mastery of folding and is an accomplished designer. However, I think he would agree that he does not necessarily treat the individual models he folds in the same way as others might. He is an excellent folder and designer, but I think it may be necessary to clarify the 'folder' category as the 'performer' category.

If you are asking about which is more important between the performer and the composer, I think you will not find an answer. Just as in music, you need both parts to create a masterpiece, but both aspects do not have to be present in the same person for a masterpiece to be made.

[Kafar]

I think that both abilities are the same important, if you design a model it means that you made some order on the piece of paper, making some points coming from different parts of paper, if you are good you will made them proportional (according to the thing you are trying to design), but than you need folding skills for modeling the base you designed. And here enters the problem with cps (I know it's not exactly on subject). folding down the cp to its base is rather simple, the level of complicity of modeling it as author did depends on how much "steps" he did after. And this is the folding part in the process of a designing the origami model. from simple bases you can do as much designs as your folding skills allows you. So as I started, both folding and designing are important, it depends on what you want to do with origami, if you just want to be folding diagrammed models, you should focus on mastering folding skills, if you want to be good designer you must master both.
and just apart of what I wrote, giang dinh (please correct me if made spelling error) isn't so good at designing, but his folds are magnificent
ps. I should made it shorter

[InsomniacFolder]

without the design, there is no fold.

Which is true (though people do fold paper randomly without a definite plan or design)

But (and you knew there was going to be a but) there are already in existence more designs than any one person, could possibly fold in their lifetime.

What would be the value of 100,000 new designs that would never be folded?
If origami were reduced to a hypothetical exercise - plotting ever more intricate arrangements of lines on virtual pieces of paper would it hold such general fascination?

Most designers are also highly skilled folders, amongst the best there are.
Those folders that are exceptional but have not turned their hand to design are, I find, quite few.
Cecilia is a good example, and there are select others, and perhaps they deserve more recoginition - I'll resist a clumsy metaphor about members in a band here.
I notice though that these are the sorts of people who good designers tend to seek out as test-fold subjects - Gilad Aharoni is another example (though he has designed the odd model.

Folding is more important to me, because I lack the intelligence or skill to design. But as a single opinion, that is largely irrelevant (though, yes I have chosen to express it!).

What is more useful or importnat to "origami" as a gestalt?
Dunnow! I remember something about chickens and eggs though.

Happily, the relationship seems, symbiotic.

All of this is perhaps why I enjoy the parts of origami books where the authors discuss their process and inspirations and share their thoughts and philosophy about origami.

Why do we fold/design?

PS: You'll be glad to know this is a massively shortened version of my original reply - I've cut it down by about 4/5

[newbpcpfolder]

For me, both are important.with no folding, there would be no designing, and vice versa.it just depends on what you want to do.and the skill.

[bethnor]

and just apart of what I wrote, giang dinh (please correct me if made spelling error) isn't so good at designing, but his folds are magnificent

i'm not sure how you can say that.

just because he doesn't design super complex models doesn't mean he can't.

[Kafar]

My intention wasn't to hurt or insult Giang Dinh, but to give an example of a person that can create extremely beautiful models, in simple natural way of intuitive folding process.
I don't know any of Dinh models that were designed i.e. has a cp that shows it has some reference, some angles, some structure that indicates one or another way of design in origami.

[BluePaper]

both are equally important. in terms of creating original models, in order to make a good model, you can't really have one without the other.

Like if all you could do was design well, then you'd just end up with a well designed but poorly folded model. and on the other end, if all you could do was fold well, then you'd just have a poorly designed model that doesn't give the actual folding skill much justice.

People can have one without the other, but it should be the ultimate goal of the aspiring origami artist to have both.


and on the part of Giang Dinh, I have to agree with bethnor in saying that just because his models aren't complex, doesn't mean they aren't well designed. The appearance of simplicity he has in his models lends greatly to their elegance and I feel that is the effect he is going for.

[dinogami]

I was thinking to myself the other day, which is more important- the design, or the folding?

What the heck kind of question is this? Rhetorical, one would hope. Albeit related, these are two different skill sets entirely. One might ask in a similar vein: "Which is more important: fixing a car or inventing a car?" Or: "Which is more important: enjoying a painting or being able to create new paintings?" Are both important? Sure. Are they both necessary in the same person? Hardly...in fact, in either instance, you'll find far more people that can do the former than the latter. Is it nice to be able to invent new origami models? Certainly. Is it important? Not at all. If one wants to fold models for the sheer pleasure of folding, or to make models to give to others for various reasons, or for some utilitarian reason, then it is not at all important to be able to invent new models.

I don't know where it has come from, but there is a trend I've sensed in the origami community (and this forum) that there's some sort of inherent hierarchy in origami at which inventing complex models is the apex, and anyone incapable of attaining that peak is necessarily inferior to anyone that can. That's not only complete bunk, but it's elitist as well. This isn't an attitude that we need in this community.

[Ben385]

Ok, fine. Thinking about it I think I may have accidentally been a bit of a troll there. Feel free to lock/delete the topic now....