Thicket, not tree — On Origami Classification, Part I

General discussion about Origami, Papers, Diagramming, ...
Post Reply
User avatar
mkosmul
Newbie
Posts: 45
Joined: September 24th, 2016, 10:00 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Thicket, not tree — On Origami Classification, Part I

Post by mkosmul »

I just published some thoughts on the classification of origami (intro and link below).

When you ask origami creators what types of origami they design, you hear terms such as _traditional_, _modular_, _supercomplex_, _tessellations_ or _dollar-bill origami_. Most origami websites also group models into similar categories. On the face of it, it looks like there is a widely used and understood classification system for origami designs. Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, this “system” falls apart, showing it is not a system at all, but rather just a bunch of names used for a few commonly folded types of models. These types overlap in some places while leaving out some models without any classification in others. Some are very generic while others are overly specific. Categories are based on different criteria, and there are few, or no relationships between them.

In this post I will try to point out some weaknesses of existing attempts at classifying origami models and suggest a different approach which I think can better solve some issues while staying mostly compatible with the system(s) origamists have gotten used to. Since the topic is huge, I decided to split the text into multiple parts. This should allow me to flesh out my vision in smaller, approachable portions, and to start the topic with just this introduction rather than waiting till I can write down everything in a single, probably very long, piece.

Read the full post at https://origami.kosmulski.org/blog/2022 ... ion-part-i
Post Reply