Glue, Wetfolding, Tissue Foil and Purism

[GreyGeese]

It sounds you are discounting people's work (at least to an extent) because they don't adhere to your standard of purism (I may be wrong). If it is still beautiful artwork, does it really matter what means were used to achieve the finished product? Really, all issues of purism are opinionated.

I do not dismiss anyone's work, no matter how it is accomplished. Art is art, and we all have our own ideas about what techniques to use. I am only defining the parameters that contain my own sense of "purism", and that I will ideally (note "ideally" does not mean "always in practice") adhere to in my own work, especially if I ever start designing.
I would personally rather accept some deviation from realism (eg unrealistically wide legs) than pinch or crumple, but I don't expect others to make that same choice (also, being far from expert, my folds sometimes turn into pinches or crumples, but at least that was not my intent. )
One practice that I do think everyone should adhere to, however, is full disclosure. Deviations from purism, including cutting, gluing, non-square paper, etc. should always be openly admitted (especially in a competition.)

[Cupcake]

1) Unless very very carefully and skillfully folded, tissue-foil models really don't look very good (and they photograph terribly.)

I've run in to that problem many times before. If you leave just one little bit of foil exposed, then the picture will show it. And trying to un-crumple foil (I tried it with my toaster design) really doesn't work very well.
Also, with boxpleating it seems like the foil just always wants to crumple up and not do some of the folds.

Another things to do with the photograph part- the pictures always show those small wrinkles that you didn't even know were there. However, I continue to use tissue-foil because I haven't been able to get anything else.

[Jonnycakes]

I have only folded one model from tissue foil (praying mantis), and one part of it was essentially box pleated. Half of the paper consisted of 2 gusset molecules, and I thinned them by sinking them in and out twice. The top of the sinks ended up being closed which made it a little hard, but I found that precreasing the sinks (with the right fold polarity) made it very doable and it looked clean enough. I have by no means mastered tissue foil, that is just my experience so far.

[HankSimon]

There are many, many levels of "augmented" folding from a light damping done by Yoshizawa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58GdBN4NWz8

to Michael LaFosse's Mountain Lion:
http://www.origamido.com/e-gallery/sele ... nlion.html

Eric Joisel's masks:
http://www.random-equation.net/node/270

And maybe Joel Cooper: http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/20 ... masks.html

demonstrating varying levels of softer, rounder folds.

- Hank Simon

[emberjelly]

I think the question of purity lies solely in each individual project. a "pure" kawasaki rose "IS" made from a square. however, you can make a pentagon rose also...and the "pure" form of this is made from a pentagon.. and my toughts on glue and stuff are that glueing is not the creating, but more of the presentation of the artwork. a picasso is still a picasso even if it has been encased inside a glass viewing box thing, or something. and also on the painting note....a painting is still a a painting no matter what medium it is. however a "watercolor" painting must always be done with watercolors. if it is not, then it is another type of painting. ALSO if a painting is done with watercolor and another type of "paint" it is then called mixed media, or you can call it watercolor, or you can call it whatever you want, but just so long as someone else knows what you used. so origami...is that a medium or is it the general broad scope of an art? i think origami is more of a verb, like to paint...to origami...to ori fold kami paper fold paper....not ori-square-ami. and i think the proper technical name for the product is a "sculpture"
maybe? who knows

i got quite upset when i read that kamiya uses glue to hold the layers together but after reading your post i felt much better. thankyou.

Jerry

[A random folder]

Wait- Is the process of folding layers in -like Lang does- and ignoring those folds afterwards (Not Using them) considered pure or unpure?

[origamimasterjared]

It's pure. Not always desirable, but pure. It usually is done to get better natural proportions, and waste less paper (Even though it appears as pure wastage).

[sunmaid]

Origami is the only art form or craft I can think of where some folks seem
have this no tool restriction to keep it pure.
Everybody uses tools in their art.
To ask an origami artist not to use a pair of tweezers seems just as silly
as asking a furniture maker not to use a saw, or a painter not to use a brush.

[GreyGeese]

Origami is the only art form or craft I can think of where some folks seem
have this no tool restriction to keep it pure.
Everybody uses tools in their art.
To ask an origami artist not to use a pair of tweezers seems just as silly
as asking a furniture maker not to use a saw, or a painter not to use a brush.

I seem to be the strictest purist on this forum, and I have nothing against using tools. I don't even mind locating points with a ruler, if it reduces unneccessary creases.

[qtrollip]

I never use a ruler. For me the fun lies in the geometry when designing something to find the 100% correct reference points. It's finding the correlation between the four corners and sides at the beginning, to locate a specific point!
But I am also very "puristic". I seldom use wet-folding. I do wet the paper (depends on the paper) afterwards for it to keep its shape. When using foil, I only use it when folding something that needs thin legs, for example. I fold the legs, not "pinch" them.
For me, when designing something, I want to be able to draw diagrams so that someone else can fold it exacly the same as when I did it. Now paper plays a big part in this. I think/know most of my models will look alot better with special paper or MC. I don't use MC. Not because I am against it at all. I like to see what a design will look like when folded with ordinary paper, which is what the greater origami community will use.
So I am very "puristic" also, but not against foil, wet-folding, mc, or whatever else has been mentioned in this topic.
I will not, however, design something that is not from a single uncut square. That is where I draw the line.
Well, there you have my 2 cents worth.

[sunmaid]

I am not opposed to folding something from a rectangle.
Even if you are a "purist" and believe in the sanctity of the square,
look at it this way.
Models that start from a rectangle can be thought of as actually starting
from a square with just one or two initial folds to transform the square
into as narrow as a 1 to 4 ratio. So now if the initial square piece of paper
is large and thin enough the square purist could feel comfortable folding
from rectangles because their rectangle would have started off as a square!
Also I have recently been folding some very ingenious Neal Elias models
(The Last Waltz and Llopio's Moment of Truth) which use box pleating.
These are folded from rectangles of about 1:3.
If you are a square purist you are missing out on some very beautiful
and ingenious creations.
But as always, there is no right or wrong here, just my humble opinion.

[qtrollip]

Yes, Sunmaid, I agree with you there.
If someone designs something by folding a square into a rectangle (and the folded layers are not used), they should have just folded it from a rectangle to start off with.
But you can also see a rectangle as an x amount of squares linked together at the edges. So that way the "restrictions" are less. So for example, folding a horse and rider from a square (in my opinion) would be more difficult than to fold it from a rectangle. But then, the rectangle folded one could be better aesthetically. If they are even aesthetically, i think the square design is better, as there were more limitations to deal with at the start of the project.
But Elias has certainly made some/many excellent models. Now people are using his techniques to make similar models in subject, but from squares!
No right or wrong, as long as you get/benefit/achieve from origami what matters to you, that is important!

[ryuzin_origami]

i agree too.

[mrsriggins]

Hmm.... I don't mind not folding from a square as long as it is still one uncut piece of paper so being a rectangle, pentagon, etc doesn't bother me. I do prefer square though because it is the easiest shape to make. The gluing satoshi does disappoints me alot. I don't mind if some one puts a varnish or something on a finished display model to help from deterioration of the paper and even to give it a nice look or texture but gluing layers together??? Wet folding I think is ok if its done on finished models. Like joisel's rat for example. Fold it dry then wet and shape the ear and nose, etc. after you are finished. You still folded the model by all 'purist' means but sculpted it a bit at the end. I'm not much on tools either I use paper and my hands, except in wet folding then I have a cup of water but I just dip my fingers in then wet the paper I don't use any kind of brush. The only thing that I really really really CAN'T STAND in origami is cutting. Cutting is cheating. Origami is one UNCUT sheet of paper

[angrydemon]

I agree with you to. Whenever I find an origami book in the book shop, the first thing I do is check if the models require any cutting and gluing. If they do, I just close the book and put it back in the bottomless abyss of darkness from whence it came. I almost never wet-fold though, mainly because I use mostly foil paper. I guess I'm sort of a "purist". All my models are folded from squares, but only because I'm too lazy to figure out the ratios I need for the sides of the rectangles.