When I was 10 yo, I got an amazing origami book where I learned about origami "purism" philosophy - always using only one square sheet of paper, no cuts and no glue. What do you think about those self-imposed limitations for aesthetic reasons?
>>620948that is literally what origami is. what do you mean self-imposed? anything else is kirigami / paper craft.
>>620970It's a fairly modern convention. There are a number of traditional models that contain cuts.
>>620970What >>620972 said. Plus, folding non-square rectangular or other shapes of paper (triangles, pentagons, ...) is also origami (like money bills, teabag or chopstick wrappings, ...)
And to answer OP, I think self-restriction sometimes makes it more difficult to create - something like Kamiya's Ryujin from a square could more easily be obtained from a long rectangular string - but sometimes makes it easier - common bases, more symmetry, diagonals being medians, etc.
to be able follow or fulfill a brief is common entry level requirement for any interest .I could probably use multiple units or unusual shaped papers,too .
No cutsNo glue or other adhesivesNo clips, staples, or other fasteners Squares only[Spoiler]final destination [/spoiler]
For a while I was kinda into the restrictions, but these days, I've started thinking they can encourage crappy design. I'm more and more annoyed by over complicated box pleated designs that try to jam a bunch of shit into the model, with no real redeeming features other than masochistic complexity.Compare that to, say, the recent 2 piece Kyohei Katsuya designs. To me, his puffin or chicken make for much better origami than some super complex box pleat where you're just spending hours folding grids.There's an appeal to pure origami, but it's disappointing when it leads to designers ignoring folding sequences. When "one square, no cuts" becomes mostly an avenue for making models that are impressive to non-folders, I think it starts getting lame. The point here is to make stuff that's fun to fold, you know?
>>621803Hot take but I just learned about box pleating a few days ago and I think it's autistic a.f., and I much prefer simple organic designsLike yeah complex designs can be cool but I think once you start bringing computer software into it then a lot of the magic is lost
>>620948I don't necessarily stick to squares, though that is useful for standardization. No matter the size of the square, it's still a square to the folds will just produce a final product of different sizes.I've never done anything with a cut but I suppose I would be open to the idea. I guess I have a preference for no cuts? 100% against glue or other outside physical ways of holding shapes or forming paper. At that point it's not origami anymore, it's just a craft project.
>>620948All the complex origami models I've seen start with a square paper. Are there any complex models that start with a non square base? I think Satoshi Kamiya's eagle ray has a version starting with rectangular base to get a longer tail.
>>621901I guess there's Lang's cuckoo clock. Also Maekawa has a couple books of models from 1:sqrt(2) rectangles. though I guess they aren't super complicated designs
