Does Pure Origami belong to regular square only?

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » November 4th, 2008, 12:48 am

lhs1701 wrote:I am not referring to discrimination. I can pointing out the weakness of the usual definition of pure origami and if this is rigidly defined and perhaps updated when new techniques are introduced. Once this definition is defined, then ok. At least everyone knows clearly what pure origami is. Models can then be created that complies with the definition of pure origami.

Well, people still fall into the categories of Democrat, Republican, Liberal, and Conservative, and combinations of these, but those are not so rigidly defined. An origamist can be a purist or not, like being a strict constructionist or a loose constructionist.

The extent to which an origamist limits him/herself by purity standards perhaps says something about them as a folder and a person, but everyone's philosophy differs a little bit, whether or not they are in the same "rigidly defined" category. Just because someone is a conservative does not mean they have a specific set of opinions, just like if an origamist is a purist.

Post by **TheRealChris** » November 4th, 2008, 10:41 am

No glue means that you don't use glue during the folding process.

nice, so I can glue after I've finished the folding process and glue together whatever I want. the only premise is not to go on folding after I've used glue... niiiice [img]http://freenet-homepage.de/origamichris/ablage/cool.gif[/img]

Adam · Post by **Adam** » November 4th, 2008, 10:51 am

I think you missed this part:

(...) and you shouldn't glue the paper to hold things into place.

Post by **TheRealChris** » November 4th, 2008, 11:10 am

no I didn't, I just decided to ignore it [img]http://freenet-homepage.de/origamichris ... _quiet.gif[/img]

OrigamiGianluca · Post by **OrigamiGianluca** » November 4th, 2008, 11:12 am

... and aslo that origami ends with the end of folding process.
Going on after this means do something different from origami

I usually use origami lotus flower as a decoration on gift packs instead of classic ribbon, but you really can't call this final result origami

Origami stops at the end of lotus flower folding process

angrydemon · Post by **angrydemon** » November 4th, 2008, 1:10 pm

Definitions of Origami.

Mountain: A mass of very high rock, often going up to a point.
Valley: An area of land between hills or mountains, often with a river flowing through it; the land through which a river flows.
Fold: To bend or close something so that one part of it lies flat on another.

Therefore,

Mountain+Fold=Mountain Fold
Mountain Fold= To bend or close something so that one part lies flat on another in the same manner of the formation of a mass of very high rock, i.e, a mountain.

Valley+Fold= Valley Fold
Valley Fold= To bend or close something so that one part lies flat on another in the same manner as the formation of an area of land between hills/mountains, i.e, a valley.

We can also deduce from this equation that all valley folds are always between mountain folds. Not only that, the "point" is the crease of a mountain fold while the "river" is the crease of a valley fold.

Pure: Without evil or sin.
Origami: Paper folding.

Pure+Origami= Pure Origami
Pure Origami= The process of folding paper to create art that is devoid of sins and evil deeds.

Cutting the paper is not pure because it involves destruction. Using more than one sheet is not pure because it means you are being greedy.

None of this might make any sense to you, but that's only because you are too dumb to understand.

ftangdude55 · Post by **ftangdude55** » November 4th, 2008, 1:17 pm

Brilliant Equations, Angrydemon!

I think I get the gist of it.....
Nevermind. (Laughing to myself at my attempted joke)
No, I understand it.

lhs1701 · Post by **lhs1701** » November 4th, 2008, 1:57 pm

I am not too concern about how pure origami is being defined but if it needs to be defined, then the definition should be clear.

Take one of my earlier pose, why square? why not other shapes? There are people here who suggest perhaps other shapes can be used? If so, what's to stop a staring shape to be that of an animal and with a few simple folds you can get a rather elegant animal.

Generally I actually support a square.

If using more than one sheet is not pure origami, again, by definition, modular origami is not pure origami. If this is acceptable to those who likes modulars, then ok. If pure origami needs to include modulars, do not forget there are other kinds of modulars, models made from just one basic shape and assembled to all kinds of fantastic results.

I will stop posting on this topic if all these "what if" results in name calling, rather than a discussion and exploring possibilities.

Post by **TheRealChris** » November 4th, 2008, 2:20 pm

oh my children...

a mountain fold is a geological process of plate tectonics. so a mountain fold is basically the process when a mountain is "born". the other thing with the vulcanoes is a lie... you can delete this from your brain.

but we have a basic problem, because the word "fold" can also describe a religious community. so maybe a mountain fold is simply a community somewhere in the mountains? [img]http://freenet-homepage.de/origamichris ... dntknw.gif[/img] maybe we're not paperfolding and we are brainwashed by a religious fanatic that gave us drugs to make us think we're folding. [img]http://freenet-homepage.de/origamichris ... /icon5.gif[/img]

OrigamiGianluca · Post by **OrigamiGianluca** » November 8th, 2008, 2:44 pm

brainwashed maybe not, but it sure that folders mind does have some working problems

nocturnum · Post by **nocturnum** » January 17th, 2009, 4:29 am

I voted square, not because I'm bias against non-rectangles or irregulars, but because my whole perspective on the idea behind the square was that of challenge and of discipline. I have always thought that the purpose of folding from a square was that accomplishing something, that would be easier from any other shape, from a square is a better indication of ability. I could take an equilateral triangle and fold a 3 petaled flower with minimal effort, but to do the same from a square would require more thought to do so. I, personally, wouldn't attribute the word "pure" to the context of this poll and would merely consider folding from a square more "traditional". "Pure" is a word saturated in pride, and it doesn't appeal to me. I have never folded from an irregular shape and, while the idea doesn't particularly appeal to me, I can still appreciate forms that were...But I wouldn't consider them as "traditional" as those folded from a square. That's all.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » January 17th, 2009, 1:30 pm

On the other hand, 'traditional' isn't the correct word either. Many traditional models involve cutting the paper, and I wouldn't really consider that to be Origami any more.

HankSimon · Post by **HankSimon** » January 17th, 2009, 7:47 pm

This started up again, so I want to stir the pot a bit more....

1. Traditional was a word used to indicate that people didn't know who the designer was....
2. There is a type of "pure" origami that only uses a square and MF & VF, but no complex folds... difficult but possible.
3. I believe that the current philosophical discussion toward the definition of Pure Origami was a good direction for defining the boundaries.... so that people can understand the fundamentals, before they explode outside of the boundaries - outside of the box.
4. Most of our respected grandmasters play around with the various types of origami, even though they tend to specialize. They also tend to respect and admire folks who are expert at other styles.
5. So, if you want to follow in the footsteps of the grandmasters, I suggest that you play around with other styles also.
6. Brill's horse is from a triangle, Elias's The Last Waltz is from a rectangle... as are many others. Yoshizawa, Dihn, and others do not use sharp MF & VF creases, but soften the angles via wetfolded techniques.
7. Some models used different shapes or cuts for effect, and then some designers took up the challenge, and redesigned the models using squares.
8. I personally had no interested in multiple cranes using cuts, Sembazuru. But I saw a few nice pictures, bought a few books, and now give away framed multiple cranes as gifts... stealing the idea from some of the talented folks on this forum.
9. My opinion is that the use of MC is just a sneaky way of using glue to make a model stay closed

Many experts would skin me alive for saying that... But I don't care, because no one get to me over the Web, plus most people don't believe in cuts

And, Despite my opinion, I have no problem using MC and wetfolding, because you can soften angles and close models to get a beautiful effect....

10. And, I'm still trying to figure out how to do Giang Dihn's Dreaming Dog...even with all of the available tools.

- Hank Simon

gordigami · Post by **gordigami** » January 18th, 2009, 6:48 am

I would have to wonder whether, via human foibles, we're over complicating things a bit.
I believe that origami is the folding of paper to form an object.
Everything else, shape, cutting, glue, material etc., is subjective, sociatal pressure and personal preference.

spiritofcat · Post by **spiritofcat** » February 17th, 2009, 12:29 pm

Folding from a square with no cutting and no glue is the method that I find most pleasing.

I have no objection to using more than one square for a model. I especially like making animals out of two bird bases which can slot together quite nicely.

Maybe once I get a bit more familiar with the methods in Origami Design Secrets I'll prefer to use only one square, but for the moment using multiple squares makes the design process a lot simpler.