What kind of designer are you?

Cupcake · Post by **Cupcake** » April 13th, 2007, 3:55 pm

I was just wondering what kind of designer people consider themselves. I started out doodling, mostly because I couldn't do anything else, and the I started designing from boxpleating CPs, after I learned to fold from boxpleating CPs.

orion119net · Post by **orion119net** » April 13th, 2007, 6:34 pm

I'm more of a doodler/idea designer. I usually start playing around with paper in my head and see if I can figure out a way to do something, after which I try to figure out a way to do it with paper.

Seems to work ok.

iAm4free · Post by **iAm4free** » April 14th, 2007, 4:16 pm

I am more of a Traditional Designer. I always use the traditional basic shapes like the fish base, bird base, waterbomb base etc... and build my models on that, it helps me make the models without cuts as they open up to a whole new array of folds, on which you build ideas...

Once I start I also doodle, which I think most people do. Once the doodled design comes close to something it might look like I start to use my mind to shape the abstract pattern to something which can be viewed.

Well doodling is the best part of origami coz it helps u to spend a lot of time..... when you don't know how to spend time... now since I live alone I have all the more the reason to keep doodling with paper while on the bus or while at work when there's no work and at home when I'm done with the household activities.

Origami!!!! I'm so happy this art exists in this world!

dogs rock012 · Post by **dogs rock012** » June 29th, 2007, 6:30 pm

im pretty much an idea designer i have designed only 2 models so far (2 cranes on a wave or crane burrito

and a acordian that also works as one of those things at party's when you blow and it goes out) but I becomeing pretty bad at designing lately...does anyone have any tips for me?

thank you everyone!

P.S. I am in the proces of making diagrams for my 2 models

Cupcake · Post by **Cupcake** » June 29th, 2007, 10:10 pm

Okay, heres what you do if you want to become a better designer: Practice. Just fold and fold until you can't fold anymore. You'll learn a lot of new techniques from this. Be sure to try designing something every so often. Also, try doodling a bit, that can be good practice. Learning CPs is also a good way to help with designing.

dogs rock012 · Post by **dogs rock012** » June 29th, 2007, 10:14 pm

what do you mean by doodling? Do you mean just fold aimlessly untill you get something?

Cupcake · Post by **Cupcake** » June 30th, 2007, 12:33 am

Well, pretty much. Not exactly aimlessly, but fold without really knowing what you are going to get... But you still need to use reference points and other things.

dogs rock012 · Post by **dogs rock012** » June 30th, 2007, 12:51 am

wow...that worked...I came up with a 3-d star with backround that transforms into a diamond

. But that was aimlessy what do you you mean use reference points and 'other things'?

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » June 30th, 2007, 5:59 am

With reference points and other things=fold so the paper will actually turn into something, most of the time meaning you will know what the paper will look like after the fold.

And I am more of an idea folder i guess. I have a lot of good designs from doodling, but I think I get some really good ideas in my head too. I have designed with CPs too, but most of those never get too far off the ground.

dogs rock012 · Post by **dogs rock012** » June 30th, 2007, 3:28 pm

Wow i came up with like 5 new designs from doodling... blinking eyes, bird beak, lightsaber, coral, and bird beak card.

Oh and i came up with this bouncy spider thing but it ripped.

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » July 23rd, 2007, 2:33 pm

I have a lot of learning to do yet before I start designing, but I am aready giving it some thought.
It seems to me that the category of super-hard, realistic models is pretty well sewn up (how does one outdo Lang, for example?) I think, therefore, that my approach will be to try and design attractive models for beginning and intermediate folders. Something like a lion or elephant that most anyone can do and be happy to show off when it is done seems like a worthy goal.
Since I come from a math background, I may also look into creating abstract, geometric forms.

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » July 23rd, 2007, 7:21 pm

It seems to me that the category of super-hard, realistic models is pretty well sewn up (how does one outdo Lang, for example?)

Not true! More and more 'super-hard, realistic models' are being designed every year! There is so much possibility in those models because there are tons of different ways of folding each subject. Different folding techniques produce different looking features, even if they represent the same thing. With complex models, there is so much variation on the same subject-giving it more detail, giving it less, using a really cool folding technique to add something special (i.e. the hermit crab shells from the design challenge 2 years ago). The possibilities are endless!

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » July 23rd, 2007, 7:43 pm

Jonnycakes wrote:
It seems to me that the category of super-hard, realistic models is pretty well sewn up (how does one outdo Lang, for example?)
Not true! More and more 'super-hard, realistic models' are being designed every year! There is so much possibility in those models because there are tons of different ways of folding each subject. Different folding techniques produce different looking features, even if they represent the same thing. With complex models, there is so much variation on the same subject-giving it more detail, giving it less, using a really cool folding technique to add something special (i.e. the hermit crab shells from the design challenge 2 years ago). The possibilities are endless!

When I say "sewn up", I don't mean "exhausted". What I mean is that there are people so far ahead of me that they will likely always be far ahead of me. That is why it makes more sense to concentrate on an area where my abstract art background may allow me to excel. Do not underestimate the value of elegant simplicity.
(Of course, I hope to eventually learn to fold some of the super hard models for my own satisfaction, but that is different than designing them.)

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » July 23rd, 2007, 9:43 pm

I do understand the allure of simpler models-don't get me wrong. There can be immense beauty in something very simple (a la Akira Yoshizawa). But part of being an origami artist is extending your skill level-eventually you may find yourself down the path of folding, or even designing, more complex things.

And definitely don't throw out the idea of one day being able to design like Lang and Kamiya-everyone has to start somewhere; all great people in their field had heroes who were far above them in skill.

Whether you choose to design simple, elegant models or complex and intricately beautiful ones (or a mixture of the two), it is down to personal choice. Do what intrigues and interests you-it doesn't matter if it seems out of your reach if you go for it.

GreyGeese · Post by **GreyGeese** » July 30th, 2007, 2:48 pm

I picked up a book by Michael LaFosse. His style is a perfect example of rthe type of "simple elegance" I referred to earlier. His models are easy enough for children and first-time folders, but are quite attractive when finished.
After struggling for 45 minutes to fold a Montroll fox (somewhat successfully), I folded a LaFosse mouse in under 5 minutes and like the result.
(A handful of his designs use cutting, however, and that I will not accept.)