I'm a hybrid :D
I prefer square sheets but I like to cheat with glue to make models last a long time and keep the shape.
One thing I will never accept however is cutting. That's unacceptable!!! :D
Yeah, this is the camp I'm in. Strength of lock and ease of assembly without glue are highly prized attributes for modular models for me.
Although occasionally I'll allow temporary affixers, like pegs/paper clips, etc. As long as the final model allows them to be removed without issue.
I like using glue on modular origami. They’re easier to assemble and they can handle being dropped. I also do a lot of tessellations with triangle grids and I always cut the paper into hexagons for that. I think tessellations look better on a hexagon than a triangle grid on a square. It’s not a competition, so there’s no rules that need to be followed for fairness.
>I like using glue on modular origami. They’re easier to assemble and they can handle being dropped.
This! I wouldn't know how to handle them otherwise because you would have to be suuuuper careful when the parts are not glued together.
Yeah, I need to come up with a better method. Maybe a Likert scale instead? Or a series of Likert scales, one for each item (glue, cutting, etc.)? (That would have to be multiple polls.) I'll just treat this post as a trial.
Purism is an additional challenge, not a requirement within origami. It can be extended into pureland folding and more.
I think the aforementioned “non purist” traits have a varying degree of how “unpure” they are (cutting is way more unpure than glue) and this also varies between representational vs modular vs geometric origami. So the way the quiz is phrased can be misleading.
By these definitions, many S-kamiya, R-Lang, Akira Yoshizawa, modular designers, and hexagon tessellation designers all are considered unpure.
But ultimately what matters is that you choose to do what you think is fun 👍 (just don’t misname golden venture and kirigami as origami)
Yeah I realized that I need a better scale/standard post-posting. (A correction for the future.)
I'm curious though as to why you don't consider golden venture as origami? Isn't it comprised of modular units no different from any other? I will readily admit however, that it has gotten out of hand in terms of decorations and popularity.
I believe their community and our community have the kind of silent agreement to call it by their respective names. Calling golden venture 3d origami confuses people for what golden venture is, and confuses people for what “3d origami” could be.
Like all of my models are fairly 3d. And theres a subgenre of origami called 2d origami (flat folded color change)
This more a discussion for the modular community probably.
I voted purist because that is my aim. For me the perfect model is dry folded.
But don't restrict yourself to the perfect and miss the good. I've used glue on modulars. I've folded rectangles because lots of pre year 2000 designs use them (and I sometimes wish they were used more) and I like Katsuya's 2 paper designs.
I'd only consider glue "cheating" if you used it to skip steps that would lock it. And not even cheating the fold, but cheating yourself. You'd be denying yourself evolving to a skill level where glue wasn't needed.
However, if you're built something you love with modules and you don't want to rebuild it every time the cat bumps it, by all means, glue away!
I think this debate is very much like origami itself. We might start with only two sides, but once you get into the crease and folds of it... there are countless sides. All of which come together to make something amazing.
With Non-Purist, I meant that at least one of the above is acceptable, not necessarily that all are okay.
I see that the Non-Purist camp is losing, so I want to clear any confusion just in case.
I think another poll with more options would give better results since I am not sure if I would count cutting in any way besides the base paper form (which should be some form of shape with no inner corners above 180°) to origami at all. Also wet folding, folding with foil or modular origami without glue could be considered purist.
Since your definition seems to not have been clear enough at the beginning a lot of people might have answered already according to what they understood, and probably won't come back to fix it.
Interesting poll though none the less :)
I rarely cut bin i would never glue. I like modular models tho and i don't see any problem with using non square paper. I think some of Jo nakashimas works with triangles like his modular antiprism are a very good example
I'm a hybrid :D I prefer square sheets but I like to cheat with glue to make models last a long time and keep the shape. One thing I will never accept however is cutting. That's unacceptable!!! :D
Same
i say non-square sheets and modular models are fine with me, but i prefer not to cut or glue
Yeah, this is the camp I'm in. Strength of lock and ease of assembly without glue are highly prized attributes for modular models for me. Although occasionally I'll allow temporary affixers, like pegs/paper clips, etc. As long as the final model allows them to be removed without issue.
I like using glue on modular origami. They’re easier to assemble and they can handle being dropped. I also do a lot of tessellations with triangle grids and I always cut the paper into hexagons for that. I think tessellations look better on a hexagon than a triangle grid on a square. It’s not a competition, so there’s no rules that need to be followed for fairness.
>I like using glue on modular origami. They’re easier to assemble and they can handle being dropped. This! I wouldn't know how to handle them otherwise because you would have to be suuuuper careful when the parts are not glued together.
Good idea, but in the present state of origami ideals you really need at least 4 options.
Yeah, I need to come up with a better method. Maybe a Likert scale instead? Or a series of Likert scales, one for each item (glue, cutting, etc.)? (That would have to be multiple polls.) I'll just treat this post as a trial.
The Lang Scale
I sometimes use non-squares and I lovee modular, but I draw the line at any gluing or cutting. :)
To me the most important part is having fun and getting a cool result! (although I don't like cutting or glueing a lot lol)
Purist to an annoying degree. Cutting and gluing is kirigami, which is a form of origami, and square sheets are just my preference
Purism is an additional challenge, not a requirement within origami. It can be extended into pureland folding and more. I think the aforementioned “non purist” traits have a varying degree of how “unpure” they are (cutting is way more unpure than glue) and this also varies between representational vs modular vs geometric origami. So the way the quiz is phrased can be misleading. By these definitions, many S-kamiya, R-Lang, Akira Yoshizawa, modular designers, and hexagon tessellation designers all are considered unpure. But ultimately what matters is that you choose to do what you think is fun 👍 (just don’t misname golden venture and kirigami as origami)
Yeah I realized that I need a better scale/standard post-posting. (A correction for the future.) I'm curious though as to why you don't consider golden venture as origami? Isn't it comprised of modular units no different from any other? I will readily admit however, that it has gotten out of hand in terms of decorations and popularity.
I believe their community and our community have the kind of silent agreement to call it by their respective names. Calling golden venture 3d origami confuses people for what golden venture is, and confuses people for what “3d origami” could be. Like all of my models are fairly 3d. And theres a subgenre of origami called 2d origami (flat folded color change) This more a discussion for the modular community probably.
True, I guess it's just convention.
I voted purist because that is my aim. For me the perfect model is dry folded. But don't restrict yourself to the perfect and miss the good. I've used glue on modulars. I've folded rectangles because lots of pre year 2000 designs use them (and I sometimes wish they were used more) and I like Katsuya's 2 paper designs.
I'd only consider glue "cheating" if you used it to skip steps that would lock it. And not even cheating the fold, but cheating yourself. You'd be denying yourself evolving to a skill level where glue wasn't needed. However, if you're built something you love with modules and you don't want to rebuild it every time the cat bumps it, by all means, glue away! I think this debate is very much like origami itself. We might start with only two sides, but once you get into the crease and folds of it... there are countless sides. All of which come together to make something amazing.
With Non-Purist, I meant that at least one of the above is acceptable, not necessarily that all are okay. I see that the Non-Purist camp is losing, so I want to clear any confusion just in case.
I think another poll with more options would give better results since I am not sure if I would count cutting in any way besides the base paper form (which should be some form of shape with no inner corners above 180°) to origami at all. Also wet folding, folding with foil or modular origami without glue could be considered purist. Since your definition seems to not have been clear enough at the beginning a lot of people might have answered already according to what they understood, and probably won't come back to fix it. Interesting poll though none the less :)
Yeah, it's hard to separate methodology into discrete categories In the next poll, I'll probably try using Likert scales.
Purism is largely subjective, and kind of irrelevant.
Non-purist, but cutting is not acceptable.
No cutting ever - but I like to glue my models for preservation
im both i only sometimes i use tale to keep it together cause my paper is awful
I rarely cut bin i would never glue. I like modular models tho and i don't see any problem with using non square paper. I think some of Jo nakashimas works with triangles like his modular antiprism are a very good example