He uses an acrylic coating. There are other goopy things that you can use as well, like polyurethane resins, but you'll need to experiment a bit first to see if it does nasty things to the paper.im.xing wrote:what material does Mr. Eric Joisel use to make his models waterproof?
Glue, Wetfolding, Tissue Foil and Purism
Forum rules
READ: The Origami Forum Rules & Regulations
READ: The Origami Forum Rules & Regulations
Well put it this way. When origami was invented, I highly doubt that it was to be interpreted in puristic sentiment. I don't think those that invented origami would care for one, and I doubt they'd feel anything but ecstatic that there's a good portion of the world keeping the tradition alive, even if the standards and practices have changed. Do I believe that glue is a tad bit unscrupled? Yes. Does that devalue satoshi's work? Because his work has a diluted glue on a section, does it make the folds belong to another? No. What I'm saying is that glue or not, Satoshi is a brilliant folder, and whether or not he uses glue only matters if you're looking at how strong his figure will hold together in the folds. Really, if I were one of the inventors of origami, I would be so proud that there are this many people dedicated to keeping the craft alive.
For me it comes down to the question of what "purity" actually does for you. Here are the advantages of "purity" that I can think of:
1. You can claim the moral high ground when talking to "impure" folders.
2. You can impress people more by telling them you only used a single square of paper with no glue or anything else to make a model. (And maybe feel better about it yourself.)
3. You only need a square of paper and your hands to practice the art, no additional supplies are needed to measure, cut, wet, glue, fold, spindle, or otherwise mutilate the paper.
Those are the biggest ones that come to mind. The third one is the only one that has much merit for me.
The first one just doesn't seem to have much point. I don't think anyone here is ever going to win an arguement by saying, "Ah ha! I am a pure folder! I win!"
The second one is okay, I guess, but most people will be equally impressed by a multipiece model, be it modular or otherwise, as they are with a "pure" model. The shape of the paper doesn't really matter to most normal people, nor does any applied treatment, be it MC, glue, water, or something else. They are just impressed by the final result, not the process, so generally speaking, the better the final result, the more impressed they will be. And, if you've convinced yourself that "purity" is important or superior, then it might be good for you.
Ah, but the third point, that's one that I can dig. At least part of the time. When I have the supplies I need on hand to wet fold, I will sometimes do that, but I also have projects and models that I can fold under less optimal circumstances so that I have the flexability to be very portable. Then again, it doesn't have to be called "pure" to meet my portability requirements. Many of these projects are modular anyway.
So, what does "purity" do for you? That's the real question you have to find an answer for.
1. You can claim the moral high ground when talking to "impure" folders.
2. You can impress people more by telling them you only used a single square of paper with no glue or anything else to make a model. (And maybe feel better about it yourself.)
3. You only need a square of paper and your hands to practice the art, no additional supplies are needed to measure, cut, wet, glue, fold, spindle, or otherwise mutilate the paper.
Those are the biggest ones that come to mind. The third one is the only one that has much merit for me.
The first one just doesn't seem to have much point. I don't think anyone here is ever going to win an arguement by saying, "Ah ha! I am a pure folder! I win!"
The second one is okay, I guess, but most people will be equally impressed by a multipiece model, be it modular or otherwise, as they are with a "pure" model. The shape of the paper doesn't really matter to most normal people, nor does any applied treatment, be it MC, glue, water, or something else. They are just impressed by the final result, not the process, so generally speaking, the better the final result, the more impressed they will be. And, if you've convinced yourself that "purity" is important or superior, then it might be good for you.
Ah, but the third point, that's one that I can dig. At least part of the time. When I have the supplies I need on hand to wet fold, I will sometimes do that, but I also have projects and models that I can fold under less optimal circumstances so that I have the flexability to be very portable. Then again, it doesn't have to be called "pure" to meet my portability requirements. Many of these projects are modular anyway.
So, what does "purity" do for you? That's the real question you have to find an answer for.
-
wolf
- Forum Sensei
- Posts: 733
- Joined: June 7th, 2003, 7:05 pm
- Location: Not locatable in this Universe
- Contact:
No, that's the problem - it depends on whether what you used permeates the paper itself, or merely sits on the surface. If it's the former, it can cause the paper to become translucent (often the oil-based coatings will do this to paper); if it's the latter, the weight of the applied coating can cause the model to sag. Either way, you may need to hold the model in place with clips while it dries, and this will of course bring about the risk of getting clip marks all over.im.xing wrote:thanks wolf. hope it would harden the model in its actual shape. isn't it?
-
thedeadsmellbad
- Forum Sensei
- Posts: 773
- Joined: December 23rd, 2004, 12:27 am
- Location: U.S.A
- Contact:
I think before you answer this it must be asked what is "purity".malachi wrote:So, what does "purity" do for you? That's the real question you have to find an answer for.
The definition will vary with a unique set of rules for every folder.
This subjective "purity" applies only to the individual who it is tailored for.
If this is the case then everyone can be labeled a "purist", so long as to thine own self, they stay true.
Pure origami in my opinion is making something from a square piece of paper by folding only. The thing is that I don't really mind giving up a bit of that purity in order to preserve the models I fold.
So it's not really about what your definition of pure origami is, but rather the definition of "pure enough".
So it's not really about what your definition of pure origami is, but rather the definition of "pure enough".
To malachi
I think that this post might have been a little misdirected possibly. I see a lot of little jabs poked at people who I assume are making origami appearto be sectionalist. I don't know too many folders who run around spouting from the teeth about their purist superiority. I think that people aren't that easily defined. I refuse to believe the face value of someone who puts a value on purity. I don't believe that if comes down to the advantages of purity and it's gains to be personally had. The people who are proud of being purist should be, they can fold in a very traditional, minimalist fashion that is something to awe at. The more about origami, the more enthralling it is to see a beautiful piece of purist folding.
I personally disagree with a few of the statements in this argument. the first two are assumptions. We are led to ASSUME that people fold in a purist manner so that they can take the moral high ground. We are led to ASSUME that people fold in a purist manner so that they can brag or impress. But I don't believe that. Maybe people, instead of wanting the moral high ground (And this is nor a moral, because a moral is something that deals with an innate good, this itself would be a purist high ground or a traditionalist high ground.), maybe the people who fold do it simply to honor the ways of tradition? Maybe it's not to impress others, maybe it's to impress themselves? Maybe they aren't satisfied by using the cuts and feel that they are cheating themselves and thos who invented origami. Could this be a possibility? I feel it far too close to conflict theory to say that purists are SOLELY in it for the power they gain for folding as such.
And my personal opinion is that modulars are not origami. They are a craft in themselves, a geometric craft, but not origami. My definition of pure origami is that you do not cut, do not glue, and only use one piece of paper. The whole "Must only use straight line folding" is a little too far for me to agree with.
I think that this post might have been a little misdirected possibly. I see a lot of little jabs poked at people who I assume are making origami appearto be sectionalist. I don't know too many folders who run around spouting from the teeth about their purist superiority. I think that people aren't that easily defined. I refuse to believe the face value of someone who puts a value on purity. I don't believe that if comes down to the advantages of purity and it's gains to be personally had. The people who are proud of being purist should be, they can fold in a very traditional, minimalist fashion that is something to awe at. The more about origami, the more enthralling it is to see a beautiful piece of purist folding.
I personally disagree with a few of the statements in this argument. the first two are assumptions. We are led to ASSUME that people fold in a purist manner so that they can take the moral high ground. We are led to ASSUME that people fold in a purist manner so that they can brag or impress. But I don't believe that. Maybe people, instead of wanting the moral high ground (And this is nor a moral, because a moral is something that deals with an innate good, this itself would be a purist high ground or a traditionalist high ground.), maybe the people who fold do it simply to honor the ways of tradition? Maybe it's not to impress others, maybe it's to impress themselves? Maybe they aren't satisfied by using the cuts and feel that they are cheating themselves and thos who invented origami. Could this be a possibility? I feel it far too close to conflict theory to say that purists are SOLELY in it for the power they gain for folding as such.
And my personal opinion is that modulars are not origami. They are a craft in themselves, a geometric craft, but not origami. My definition of pure origami is that you do not cut, do not glue, and only use one piece of paper. The whole "Must only use straight line folding" is a little too far for me to agree with.
-
Daydreamer
- Moderator
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: October 28th, 2005, 2:53 pm
- Location: Vienna, Austria
- Contact:
Actually you will find a lot of cuts in traditional designs (f.e. the traditional shrimp which uses cuts to create the antennae,...). The puristic rules of "One Square, no cuts, no glue" are only a recent development mainly due to western folders.Marx wrote:The people who are proud of being purist should be, they can fold in a very traditional, minimalist fashion (...)
Maybe they aren't satisfied by using the cuts and feel that they are cheating (...) those who invented origami.
I still like to follow those rules, except for maybe using something other than a square sometimes
So long and keep folding ^_^
Gerwin
Gerwin
Marx wrote:I personally disagree with a few of the statements in this argument. the first two are assumptions.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I was trying to list the reasons that "purity" might have value that I could think of. That doesn't mean that everyone would value those things, nor was it an all inclusive list. You also should keep in mind that, once upon a time, I was a "purist", but now I guess I'm a heretic.
As someone else pointed out, "purity" != traditional. One of the things that really gets on my nerves is the fact that some "purists" attribute the idea of "purity" to the original traditions of origami to validate thier position. Again, moral high ground.
Not only that, but it seems to me that people who find internal value from "purity" find it because they have decided that it has value. In other words, it has very little extrinsic value, and can only have intrinsic value if you decide it does.
And yes, I have seen people bandy about the idea of "purity" in a way that is condescending to anything "impure".
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You dismiss an entire branch of paper folding as not being origami simply because it doesn't conform to one of the made up rules that you have decided has value for you.Marx wrote:And my personal opinion is that modulars are not origami. They are a craft in themselves, a geometric craft, but not origami. My definition of pure origami is that you do not cut, do not glue, and only use one piece of paper. The whole "Must only use straight line folding" is a little too far for me to agree with.
My understanding is that the word origami literally translates as "paper folding", not "folding a single uncut piece of paper without the use of glue".
-
Daydreamer
- Moderator
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: October 28th, 2005, 2:53 pm
- Location: Vienna, Austria
- Contact:
You could use the same argument to say that the word "paper folding" does not include anything about glue or cuts because those would fall into the categories "paper glueing" and "paper cutting"malachi wrote:My understanding is that the word origami literally translates as "paper folding", not "folding a single uncut piece of paper without the use of glue".
So long and keep folding ^_^
Gerwin
Gerwin
I first need to apoligize. I want you to know that I wasn't attempting to attack you, and it looks like it came off that way.
I follow the origami reference to just paper folding. But if we consider this to be true, then every unintentional fold in a piece of paper is a work or origami. Don't think that I don't agree with you on the points you made. SOME folders are definately in that sect of people who fold in purism just for the moral grounds. But I don't believe all can be lumped together. I'm just trying to show what other sides of this issues there can be.
I misspoke when I said "disagree." Disagree implies that I do not agree with all of this. I should have said disagree with the implication that all purists are this way. Truly, the word origami does not incdicate anything about the ability to use glue or cuts, which doesn't necessarily prohibit the use, but it does not permit the use. I can tell you that when the word was created, I doubt that there were very effiecient cutting or gluing methods, so there would be no possibility of knowing about it. They didn't have glue or scissors, so how would they have knwon to indicate not to use it? It's like making a car and saying in the manual "Don't use rougel gas" in it. We don't even know what rougel gas is. But maybe it's part of the future? My point is is that there would be no way for them to indicate the rules or purism if all the possible deviations from that standard cannot be known.
Yes, I dismiss an entire branch because it is truly not origami, and this is my own opinion. I do not agree that modulars are origami. I believe they take skill and craft, but they are not origami. Let me elaborate on this. There is a reason for my creation of values and purist standard. It is because there has to be a line drawn at some point that says "This is not origami." If we allow modulars and gluing to be considered origami, then can not a folder just glue five papers together and call it a star? Remove glue, then, you might say. Then can't that same person vaguely dog-ear a set of pages and call it book? Without some standard, there is no way to truly keep all of these idiotic pretences from making a publisher cry. ANd if we are to further elaborate on the modulars concept, at what point will we say that the modular is no longer just four or five sheets aligned in a pattern? This means we must set a standard for intricacy. And when we set a standard for intricacy, does this not confer some sort of judging to go on? And if this judging occurs, then how will we keep all models on the same table, if we are to allow cutting? Remove cutting. We now have an honest and accurate standard to hold models to. It is extreme to completely dismiss models due to their presence of cut and glue, but it is also ridiculous to accept them when they harbor the possibilities of permutations and unfair advantages in the craft. gluing to keep folds together is not bad. Gluing to join sheets? That's unfair. Cutting for a detail? That's questionable. Cutting to gain an entire limb? That's unfair. Using multiple modules of the same device to tesselate? That's odd. Using multiple modules and calling it paper folding? That's wrong.
It's called paper folding, not paper cutting, gluing, moduling and whatevering.
Oh and wolf; the "Have you met the teenage crowd at folding conventions? " thing. I am the teenage crowd. Don't seem like it, do I?
I follow the origami reference to just paper folding. But if we consider this to be true, then every unintentional fold in a piece of paper is a work or origami. Don't think that I don't agree with you on the points you made. SOME folders are definately in that sect of people who fold in purism just for the moral grounds. But I don't believe all can be lumped together. I'm just trying to show what other sides of this issues there can be.
I misspoke when I said "disagree." Disagree implies that I do not agree with all of this. I should have said disagree with the implication that all purists are this way. Truly, the word origami does not incdicate anything about the ability to use glue or cuts, which doesn't necessarily prohibit the use, but it does not permit the use. I can tell you that when the word was created, I doubt that there were very effiecient cutting or gluing methods, so there would be no possibility of knowing about it. They didn't have glue or scissors, so how would they have knwon to indicate not to use it? It's like making a car and saying in the manual "Don't use rougel gas" in it. We don't even know what rougel gas is. But maybe it's part of the future? My point is is that there would be no way for them to indicate the rules or purism if all the possible deviations from that standard cannot be known.
Yes, I dismiss an entire branch because it is truly not origami, and this is my own opinion. I do not agree that modulars are origami. I believe they take skill and craft, but they are not origami. Let me elaborate on this. There is a reason for my creation of values and purist standard. It is because there has to be a line drawn at some point that says "This is not origami." If we allow modulars and gluing to be considered origami, then can not a folder just glue five papers together and call it a star? Remove glue, then, you might say. Then can't that same person vaguely dog-ear a set of pages and call it book? Without some standard, there is no way to truly keep all of these idiotic pretences from making a publisher cry. ANd if we are to further elaborate on the modulars concept, at what point will we say that the modular is no longer just four or five sheets aligned in a pattern? This means we must set a standard for intricacy. And when we set a standard for intricacy, does this not confer some sort of judging to go on? And if this judging occurs, then how will we keep all models on the same table, if we are to allow cutting? Remove cutting. We now have an honest and accurate standard to hold models to. It is extreme to completely dismiss models due to their presence of cut and glue, but it is also ridiculous to accept them when they harbor the possibilities of permutations and unfair advantages in the craft. gluing to keep folds together is not bad. Gluing to join sheets? That's unfair. Cutting for a detail? That's questionable. Cutting to gain an entire limb? That's unfair. Using multiple modules of the same device to tesselate? That's odd. Using multiple modules and calling it paper folding? That's wrong.
It's called paper folding, not paper cutting, gluing, moduling and whatevering.
Oh and wolf; the "Have you met the teenage crowd at folding conventions? " thing. I am the teenage crowd. Don't seem like it, do I?
everything in art and craft is possile to go together, a mixture. So what works that done the most will get the name.
modular mainly is folding, and at very end there is glue so it is origami. a model have been folded then painted or have one or two cut even that is cut into many pieces still folding with addition technique cut and paint.
modular mainly is folding, and at very end there is glue so it is origami. a model have been folded then painted or have one or two cut even that is cut into many pieces still folding with addition technique cut and paint.