Froy wrote:And purist need to face the fact that adding MC or Wet folding is not purism at all.
I'm curious what kind of solutions there are to this problem if it's true. (Besides foil paper, I'm not familiar with (m)any papers that will easily hold their shape without glue. I'm talking about models that need a lot of shaping, such as insects and arthropods.)
chesscuber98 wrote:I really like Michael LaFosse's definition. Its Origami as long as the process of sculpting the sheet of paper is metamorphic in nature. Adding glue is not an additive process so to say, it simply aids the metamorphosis. But if the same glue is used to stick different sheets together(i.e. the paper no longer remains a square) then it will not be true to Origami.
This. That's why I'm not opposed to using foil paper and MC if it's necessary for a given model.
Of course, if there are other solutions, let me know. P:
Scoopey wrote:Whilst I will do modular origami with fancy paper locks I tend to avoid models such as dinosaurs where the top is glued to the bottom and would ordinarily fall off without it. I personally feel if glue is used to merely neaten up the end result and helps for longevity then you haven't really cheated. I did not in one of Michael LaFosse's books he suggested putting in rolled up and flattened foil to make legs rigid.
As for square only paper - Not quite sure where I stand on that one as you could make a rectangle by folding in the edges...it would be awkward to fold afterwards mind! Square only would also rule out dollar bill origami and there are some fantastic (read Won Park) designs out there...
I don't see why origami has to be entirely "purist" or "non-purist." Why can't there be different kinds of origami (i.e., modular, non-square paper, etc.)? It's the same with tessellations that are done from hexagons.
I've already seen someone on this forum say that the Chinese modular units weren't origami, and while I don't appreciate them as much as I do single-sheet models, they still have a place in the art. There are some great modulars and dollar-bill models out there, and I don't see a reason to exclude them from origami--even if they're not "purist enough."
I used to fold modulars all the time, but I moved to "purist" origami a few years ago because I found it boring to fold the same model (module) dozens of times over. But those are still origami.
NOTE: When I say I don't appreciate the Chinese units as much as other origami, I mean that just about every model I've seen using them has one of two structures. As a result, it's essentially the same as attaching several sheets together to form a non-geometric shape. (I feel modulars are supposed to be geometric, as are tessellations.)