Complexity, difficulty and detail.

JMcK · Post by **JMcK** » May 21st, 2003, 1:35 am

It's occured to me that the complexity, the folding difficulty and the level of detail of a model are three very different things.

For example:

Paul Jackson's elephant is difficult to fold, but isn't either complex or detailed.

Eric Joisel's pangolin is obviously very detailed, what with all the scales, and is probably very difficult (and definitely very time consuming) to fold, but isn't that complex, since it mostly consists of a tessellation.

Fumiaki Kawahta's Pegasus is complex, difficult and detailed.

Maekawa's devil is complex and detailed but not that difficult to fold (apart from the tail, maybe).

Any thoughts on this?

Post by **TheRealChris** » May 21st, 2003, 12:38 pm

I discussed this with a couple of friends some time before, and it's obviously true, that there is a difference between understanding the folding process and reproducing the folding process.

but this is very understandable, because it is not the same thing, knowing what to do and telling your fingers to do it

what I recognized was, that there is also a difference between complex folding and complex looking. the kawasaki rose for example, looks difficult but is easy to fold... any thoughts on this?

JMcK · Post by **JMcK** » May 28th, 2003, 7:27 pm

TheRealChris wrote:I discussed this with a couple of friends some time before, and it's obviously true, that there is a difference between understanding the folding process and reproducing the folding process.

but this is very understandable, because it is not the same thing, knowing what to do and telling your fingers to do it

what I recognized was, that there is also a difference between complex folding and complex looking. the kawasaki rose for example, looks difficult but is easy to fold... any thoughts on this?

Yeah... it's easy to understand what you're supposed to do when you're folding Jeff Beynon's Spring into Action, but it's very difficult to actually make.

I love models that look difficult or complex but are actually quite easy to fold. I can't think of that many off the top of my head, though. As well as the original Kawasaki rose, there's Jeremy Shafer's Surfer on a Wave and Denver Lawson's "artichoke" modular (which will probably get diagrammed in the BOS mag at some stage).

Post by **TheRealChris** » May 28th, 2003, 10:02 pm

lately on the origami convention germany, a friend of mine gave me the diagrams for an scorpion of Lionel Albertino (published in "Der Falter" in june 1993). this one is absolutely amazing, only one page, 52 steps but looking gorgeous

I love that one, and it's the same as above, looking real complex but is easy to fold (even by mind).

stuckie27 · Post by **stuckie27** » May 29th, 2003, 2:17 am

TheRealChris wrote:lately on the origami convention germany, a friend of mine gave me the diagrams for an scorpion of Lionel Albertino (published in "Der Falter" in june 1993). this one is absolutely amazing, only one page, 52 steps but looking gorgeous
I love that one, and it's the same as above, looking real complex but is easy to fold (even by mind).

do you have a picture?

Post by **TheRealChris** » May 29th, 2003, 12:35 pm

do you have a picture?

unfortunately not, but I will try to make one tomorrow, at work. I will have to use the camera of a colleague of mine.

Post by **TheRealChris** » May 31st, 2003, 12:29 am

I've uploaded two pics of the scorpion here:

[img]http://wald.heim.at/wienerwald/551844/s ... _pic_1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://wald.heim.at/wienerwald/551844/s ... _pic_2.jpg[/img]

I really like this model

stuckie27 · Post by **stuckie27** » May 31st, 2003, 2:50 am

it dosent look to simple

Post by **TheRealChris** » May 31st, 2003, 10:16 am

it dosent look to simple

that was, what I ment... the difference between looking difficult and beeing difficult

wolf · Post by **wolf** » June 7th, 2003, 7:42 pm

"Complexity" is too vague a word to describe models; rather, like John says, it should be rated on several different things, like technical difficulty, folding length, and realism.

Joisel's faces are not technically difficult, but it's extremely hard to fold them lifelike. The same goes for a lot of other mask models.

Lang's bugs are technically difficult (especially those steps that require doing a triple unsink, underwater, blindfolded, and one hand behind your back).

The cobras aren't technically difficult, but I tend to fall asleep while folding the scales. It's nice and lifelike though.

Post by **saj** » July 6th, 2003, 6:59 pm

Hey that looks great! I remember the first scorpion I tried to fold was the one from BOS London Convention Book (1992). The author of the model is Eduardo Clemente.

I still get stuck on step 14, (page 210) - I just don't understand how it is possible to wrap that layer around.

Any ideas guys?

Sorry for hijacking the thread!

Post by **TheRealChris** » July 7th, 2003, 12:13 am

I don't know the model, but if you would send me the diagrams, I could be able to help you out

Post by **TheRealChris** » October 2nd, 2003, 12:20 pm

Lang's bugs are technically difficult (especially those steps that require doing a triple unsink, underwater, blindfolded, and one hand behind your back).

I just browsed through the forum and read this thread again. I really had to laugh out loud, when I read this sentence. maybe these kinds of spread-squash-double-inside-crimps are the reason that it's sometimes really frustrating to fold Lang's stuff

there is only one sentence that make me really shake all times? Can you guess it?

here comes the answer:

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/

it's the sentence "unfold everything"... buh I hate that one *grrrr*

greetings

Christian

dani luddington · Post by **dani luddington** » June 17th, 2005, 11:38 pm

this is a great thread. i had a conversation with a friend of mine recently whom i feel is a lot more proficient at folding then i am(i think this, because he designs models and i havent as of yet, he can also remember lots of models from memory, i cant) but its very ambiguous this "how good of a folder are you?" or "what level am i at?"
as my friend described that models are gauged on "what folds are required to create them." ack! that is not true if you ask me. as i can sometimes work out what they call complex models, and sometimes have a hell of a time with stuff that should be relatively easy. so what gives? is it because the diagrams arent clear, why i cant create them? i do know most all of the folds that are out there. or is it something else.
i asked this question of my friend as i am going to convention next week and wasnt sure which level of classes i should take. just thoughts and ramblings....... sincerely, dani

wolf · Post by **wolf** » June 18th, 2005, 1:30 am

From what you've posted, I'd say that you'll be able to handle most, if not all, of the complex level classes. The difficulty of the classes at the OUSA convention have a tendency to be inflated (may be a good thing, sometimes). Plus, a model's difficulty also depends on the teaching medium; it's often easier to do something when someone is showing you, so that brings down the model complexity a notch further.

Since the Model Menu is usually completed by Friday evening, that will give you time to track down the instructors (everyone will be wearing name tags) and find out exactly what is required for the model you wish to learn.

The Origami Forum

Complexity, difficulty and detail.

Complexity, difficulty and detail.

Amazing!