HOME | DD
juniorWoodchuck — Winged Knight
by-nc-nd
#castle #evolution #fantasy #future #humanevolution #knight #medieval #sciencefantasy #sciencefiction #scifi #posthumans #speculativeevolution #juniorwoodchuck #specevo
Published: 2017-08-02 14:21:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 5619; Favourites: 124; Downloads: 13
Redirect to original
Description
Morning creeps over the hills and valleys, chasing darkness back into hiding. Dhala's heavy footsteps are cushioned by the grass, still wet from the night's cold. On her back, the Winged Knight Temohin feels nothing but pride. After decades of training and fighting, he has been blessed by Her Eternal Holiness the Matron Queen and earned his wings, distinguishing him as an immortal protector of the Holy City of Haag'al-Hos. This is the first day of his service to the Matron Queen and the Holy City, the first of many.
As part of his training, he has cut all ties to his former life as the son of a farmer and left his name and all his earthly possessions behind. Not even memories remain of his former life. He is no longer a lowly farmer. He is a warrior, and he's always been a warrior, preparing him for his new life of servitude to the Queen – to eternity or to death.
This new life has already allowed him more than he could have ever been in the old one and it will allow him to be so much more still. From the ranks of the Winged Knights he'll have the opportunity to ascend to a member of the Council Saints and attain a seat of power. Through his actions he'll even have a chance to be chosen by the Matron Queen to be her lover.
© by me
Related content
Comments: 55
You know, I have been wondering that too but I think she’s the same size...
There are already some similarities with eusocial insects and I don’t want it to be too derivative.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know it's good art when you can't tell whether you're looking at a posthuman or a bird.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, I take that as a compliment
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you, mate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know what was the first thing I thought of? Don't take this the wrong way, but that old video game "Joust." Do you remember it? Bunch of knight dudes with lances trying to joust each other off of "flying" ostriches?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No worries, I’m not taking this as an insult... I have never hear of that game but it sounds pretty damn hilarious, actually!
Might have to look it up
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a weird one, and I think it was on the Atari or old arcade machines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I found some box art of it that looks pretty damn cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks! I’m really happy with it myself...
Deciding on the final design for that castle was a pain though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah i bet, my next mutant drawing will have a decent background im motivated
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ah, this is some strange society you are talking about .... hope something will become of him in the future!
Really like the design of that bird and character ... really interesting creature
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad you like it!
Yeah, I’m sure he’ll manage to fend for himself
(Both of them are evolved from humans though)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Both!?!!?!?!?!!?!
That makes everything even more interesting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup, both...
I kinda wanted to fit in more but it just didn’t seem right... maybe I’ll make a sort of sequel some day
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, glad you like it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this!
If you don't mind me asking, do you think you could share a bit of the creative process of this piece? could you walk me through the steps so to speak?
A lot of my sketches look really messy and I'd love to know what you do to keep your illustrations so clean
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, I’m glad you do!
Sure thing, I might just not recall everything correctly but I’ll do my best...
I first came up with the two posthumans while sketching random critters of different sorts. What is now the mount was originally more of a smaller farm animal and looked more human in its anatomy. What is now the knight always looked pretty much the same. the basic idea behind the two was basically that one are evolved from dog-like bipedal predators that have then domesticated their herbivorous relatives (without knowing they are both descendants of humans and not even knowing what humans are). I wanted them to have a sort of medieval society so I started doodling the predators in armor and changed the herbivores’ anatomy to be a mount. For the knight’s armor, I did two preliminary sketches that only partially showed them but I was pretty happy with them so I went ahead with that design. I didn’t use any real medieval armor for inspiration and just drew on my mental library of armors and the like. For the mount’s armor, I did not do any preliminary sketches because I had a clear picture in my mind and knew how I wanted it to look like. So both of them underwent three steps in their designs before I started on the real thing.
I then sketched the rider on his mount in pencil (I use a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil for all my sketches and pencil drawings) onto a thicker paper. I think I inked those two before sketching the background but I’m not quite sure anymore. I was not totally sure what I wanted the background to be like but I soon decided on a hilly landscape and some kind of castle/temple/mosque. For the landscape, I used pictures of Iceland for reference as well as using my usual motives like stones sticking out of the ground and stuff like that...
The castle gave me a lot of trouble because i didn’t really know what it should look like. I wanted it to to have some Islamic elements and I knew I wanted it to be a rather big thing to balance out the picture. I looked at different mosques, churches and temples and sketched down many different variations but i wasn’t really happy with any of them. Before i had even sketched the final version of the castle, I inked the rest of the background to prevent it from smudging or anything like that.
I finally found the inspiration i was looking for when looking through an encyclopedia in which there was the picture of a model of the Midway gardens in Chicago. So the final design in the picture is actually modernist architecture to which I added elements more frequently seen in Middle Eastern and Indian architecture such as the domed roofs as well as the archways and windows. I inked all those elements by hand but then erased them all but the best one of each digitally, tweaked it a little and copied it to make for a more consistent look. (The rest of it is done with rulers of course)
Originally, I had also intended to have something in the sky but nothing looked right so I just scrapped the idea...
Well, my sketches are often rather messy as well but I would not count this as a sketch and more as a full-fledged linework drawing. I don’t know how long it actually took me since I made some longer breaks in between but without those, I was probably working on this for over a week. I made sure that every line sits perfectly and all of them were meticulously planned and sketched out.
It’s actually the first inked drawing like this I have ever done so I’m rather happy with how it turned out...
The cleanness you mentioned is probably due to me having a fairly steady hand, made sure that every line is precisely where it needs to be and lifted my pen off the paper after a couple of lines (sometimes after even just one) to give my hand a bit of a rest and to see it all from another point of view than close up while being concentrated...
My inked pieces are also all done with 0.3mm and 0.1mm fineliner which adds to the crispness, I reckon.
Anyways, this was kinda my process on this... hope it was not too ramble-y and I managed to help you out somewhat
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hmmm... interesting! gotta get myself a mechanical pencil then and try how it handles
the building I like a lot. It reminds me of ancient roman architecture with eastern influence, but my immediate impression was that it would even fit a landscape in Star Wars.
Thanks for sharing your tips and tricks with me. I gotta admit I really need to put a lot more effort in my drawings to even hope to produce anything half as good as you, but it's gonna be fun anyway.
I wouldn't call this a sketch either. it definitely finished and it looks like it's supposed to be presented this way. I didn't want to imply I thought this is a sketch.
One thing I notice the most is that I tend to overshade far too much. where do you find the restraint to hold back?
I also need to work on my patience it seems, I don't have it in me to really hone my lines in and place them perfectly, but you've really inspired me to do my best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that’s just what works best for myself... but it certainly is worth a try
I’m glad you do, it’s what took me the longest out of all of this. Yeah, I can see those similarities... looks kinda like something from Naboo as they went for a sort of ancient Rome/modernism/domes as well.
Anytime, I’m always happy to help
That’s very flattering but I don’t think it’s true... you’re selling yourself too short. You just need to believe more in yourself as your art is absolutely fantastic. Of course I’m not trying to keep anyone from developing their art of course, but comparing oneself to others is never a good idea. Instead, you should compare yourself to your older drawings and see how much you improve with every new design
Ah no, I definitely didn’t understand it that way, I just wanted to take some pressure off you in case you thought I just whipped this out in an afternoon or so...
Well I only really started to shade my drawings with Terra mirus so I’m still fairly new to it so I’m hesitant to go all-out immediately. I usually start out pretty light and go darker and darker until I’m happy with how it looks... as a rule of thumb, I usually prefer shading too little rather than too much because it’s always easier to add a bit more than to make it lighter.
I reckon my restraint just stems from me being a rather cautious shader
Not necessarily... just because this rather slow and deliberate style of drawing works for me, does not mean that it would be the best technique for you too. Again, I don’t want to keep you from trying new things but I also don’t want you to put too much pressure on yourself and try to adapt to this style even though it might not be the best for you.
There are some professional artists who sketch really quickly and loosely too and the results look quite stunning. So I reckon you should not set your mind to thinking your way is bad and that others do it better but just try different things like a slower approach, a more calibrated one as well as faster and more loose stuff so you can see what works best for you and maybe mix the different techniques so it is best tailored to you.
But I’m glad I could inspire you to give it your all!
(got kinda preachy there, eh?... sorry about that)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
right! thank you for everything!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Anytime, I hope I was able to help
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You've done more than I could ever ask for.
I¨m looking forward to experimenting with a pencil, but before that happens, I really want to go all out on something else first. I've recently gotten the urge to fold something again. I'm slowly making my way through the preparations, I'm currently trying to figure out the relative proportions and stuff. I really hope I can get it done before august ends because that's probably the last chance I'll get to fold anything this complex for a long time. I have taken a long break from origami because I was absolutely uninspired and drained, but now I've got the urge to fold in me again. No spoilers but I've posted a journal about the animal in question. It's gonna be tough. really tough, even, but I'm gonna make it work somehow.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I’m really glad to hear that
That’s awesome! You have always seemed very enthusiastic about your origami and you’re really good at it so I’m glad to hear you’re getting back into it! Having read that journal, I’m really excited to see how it will turn out!
And I know you’ll make it work... your previous origami creations have always looked like pure magic to folding-philistine me so I’m sure this one will look just as fantastic and I wish you the best of luck!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! 
What's odd is I could find this really awesome paper which I linked, with beautiful interpretative drawings and detailed limb diagrams, but I can't find similarly well done material on other eurypterids, even the notorically known ones like Mixopterus and Megalograptus. Megalograptus even co-starred on TV with Nigel Marvin and I still couldn't find any freely accessible paper on it.
Sadly, I am not at the point where I could afford to pay 30 bucks for one day access to a paper which I can't preview and make sure it contains what I'm looking for. I can read the abstract for free, sure, but for someone who needs pictures for reference, this is sadly not enough
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, it’s quite fascinating how seeing something like that motivate people to do all manner of things. I reckon it could be because you are really excited about that critter so you want to depict it artistically... it’s kinda like fanart in a way...
It’s almost like an ode to the things we like, honoring them by depicting them.
That really is strange! Maybe it’s just too "specialized" in a way for it to be accessible online... it’s like what we’ve been talking about that Cambrian life and so on is not all too well documented in books, tv and movies so maybe it has got something to do with this. I have been trying to find stuff on some of the more cryptic Cambrian lifeforms as well and there usually wasn’t much more than maybe a single paragraph of text and a simple picture if I was lucky...
That’s understandable... Would be a bummer to spend that money and then not even get what you were looking for...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Warning: An overly extatic rant of an overly extatic unhinged fanboy lies ahead, proceed with caution
Tl;Dr: pentecopterus is bloody awesome for many reasons and I have done enough prep work already to start piecing the crease pattern together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, well, the model is well on its way. I shouldn't say that, really, but I've been working on it in between some annoying stuff I've had to get out of the way. (real life sucks sometimes. meh)
Because most of my models start out with a grid, i've been toying around with the drawings of the animal to find a grid size that fits most of the main features. Here the main issue were the segments, because they are not even in width, but surprisingly enough, I've actually managed to find a grid size that fits most of the segments so closely the grid misses the segments only by a few pixels on my screen most of the time, and there turned out to be only 3 segments which are going to have to be 1.5 units wide instead of 1, but I can work around that easily.
The other thing I've been working on is trying to figure out how much paper each of the legs is going to take up on the square of paper and for that I needed to "unfold" the legs of the animal from their natural curve to a straight line so that I can measure how long each of the flaps needs to be and to figure out how far from the base of the leg the spikes need to be and how long they are relative to each other and to the leg they're growing out of. This was quite headache-inducing, but I've just got the rough measurements done.
I have had to idealise and simplify the shape of the creature into the most basic elements, but I've actually surprised myself with how few corners I needed to cut in the process (pun intended 
I don't know if you remember, but I've folded Megalograptus some years ago. I never really liked how it came out despite popular acclaim from fellow deviants. I totaly forked up in the planning stage and made too many lazy decisions when drawing the crease pattern for it, which turned the entire folding process into a nightmare from start to finish and my mistakes kept biting me all the way through. fold directions didn't line up, which turned the model into an absolute mess and the finished model looked like it too. I've bitten much more than I could chew that time.
So afterwards I really wanted a "rematch" so to speak and make a better version on one hand, but on the other hand, I've kind of came to resent Megalograptus so much that I really didn't want to touch it again (my brain is stupid, and I hate it XD)
One thing I learned when folding Megalograptus is that less is more sometimes, so the "cut corners" in my case are mostly going to be limited to ommiting some of the very small spikes which are not essential to the look of the creature. Trying to include ALL the spikes in my Megalograptus model was its ultimate downfall in the end. That project was destined to fail as soon as my "planning" started. On the other hand, that was 7 years ago and I was still very new to complex origami at that time.
I can do much better now, (i.e. I can make it so that it doesn't end up a total FUBAR again, 
One thing that I only learned recently is that despite being portrayed as a 4 ft long sea monster on TV, Megalograptus (based on what little is known of it - isolated legs and mangled body segments) likely did not exceed 2ft in length by much. Now that's far too close in size to an overfed lobster instead of the "dinobug" it's been portrayed as. (In fact, it was so well preserved it was originally mistaken for a Graptolite - a colonial hemichordate, of all things - hence the "graptus" in its name.)
Pentecopterus is the polar opposite. For starters, it was absolutely bonkers humongous. That alone makes it much more desirable as a potential model material, because when I get to show the model to people, I can play off of how well its size makes a point of "Damn nature, you scary!"
I mean, look at this post:
www.behance.net/gallery/330737…
Look at the photo of the modeller laying next to the life-sized drawing of this beast!
There are many other cool things about Pentecopterus though, because it really is an important discovery. It is the oldest Eurypterid currently known, but it is not primitive in anatomy. In fact, it predates Megalograptus by 22 million years but it has more derived paddle leg anatomy than Megalograptus. On the other hand, Megalograptus seems to have gone back in time in a sense, because many features of its anatomy which were originally attributed to it just being primitive are now considered to be reversals - As in a cetrain set of traits has become the norm for late Ordovician Eurypterids and Megalograptus went "nah, I'm not having any of this, the old stuff worked just fine." What's really cool though is that nobody would have any idea that Megalograptus only looked primitive because it reversed some mutations to a more prmitive state if it wasn't for Pentecopterus.
Pentecopterus is also exceptionally well-preserved, to the point where it might actually become the most well known Eurypterid to date. I mean how often does it happen that the oldest known representative of an entire group of animals is also the best known one? Its size is actually an important part of it, as any and all microstructures are going to be proportionally sized to a large animal and thus much easier to observe in fine detail. They have found hundreds of fragments, and all these fragments are molts! Turns out these buggers found a flooded meteorite crater and chose it as their molting grounds. These fragments preserve the microstructure so well that it's even known in great detail where the numerous setae grew. Mind=Blown.
The last awesome thing about it is that there are even babies found among the fossils, and thus we know that baby eurypterids had simple legs and the mean spikes grew gradually over time. Pentecopterus shows Eurypterids underwent allometric growth. Relative limb lengths and their armature (i.e. spikes) has changed over time as they grew up. It was originally assumed the babies were just scaled down versions of the adults. The reason why it's certain that the small fossils are the same animal as the big fossils is the structure of the cuticular scales, which matches up, and apparently, this is something that is diagnostic for Eurypterids as it is unique to each species. Now scientists know not to dismiss small primitive-looking Eurypterids as just that, and instead check and make sure whether they actually aren't a baby of another Eurypterid. Now I think this is really cool as well.
I lied. The one awesome thing about Pentecopterus in my opinion is actually very subjective, and it's just its overall shape. It's striking. It's menacing. It's huge. But it's also elegant. It fits the image of a prehistoric apex predator to the Tee. There is just something about the way it looks which pushes all the right buttons with me. It really speaks to me. In my mind's eye it really looks just right. It's absolutely perfect. it's the right blend of spiky and sleek and it's in my opinion the most beautiful Eurypterid known. Put any other Eurypterid next to it and it's going to look lame 
Now if I were to talk about Megalograptus, all I could say about it is: "They found some broken up clawed legs and it turns out it wasn't even that big"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now I done it again... I have unleashed one of your infamous rants
That actually brings me to something I have been wondering about for a while now, namely how exactly you approach such an origami.
Do you just start by taking a piece of paper and trying out things to see what works and then create a grid based on your findings or do you just start with creating a grid and making all the folding in your head?
Because both approaches seem pretty difficult to me and I can’t even fathom how any of it would eventually lead to an origami critter... (especially since that’s bordering on magic for me anyways)
You really are smitten with eurypterids, eh?
But it was actually really cool and quite educational to read your rant as I didn’t actually know all that much about them... the fact that the different larval stages have been found is especially cool to me. It gives us a very in-depth look into the lives of animals that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years. And I totally agree, they were both fearsome but also quite elegant creatures. Their front end looks absolutely horrific with multiple spiked arms but the rest of the body was really rather gracile in a way.
Even though I’m glad they don’t exist anymore, it would be absolutely incredible to see one of them in motion... especially since we don’t really have anything all to similar nowadays, it’s not that easy to imagine how they’d look and act in real life
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
smitten XD I guess that's right. and strangely enough, I've been introduced to them in my early teens through admiring these two origami models:
gallery.raccoonfink.com/d/1441…
I definitely agree they were cool animals which are without comparison today.
Eurypterus is the most common and most famous one of course, so it's easy to love, and mixopterus was pretty big and exotic-looking with all the spikes, and besides Pterygotus and kin, I kind of thought that's all the interesting eurypterids there have ever been, but turns out they were much more diverse and interesting than i've been giving them credit for.
I guess my recent refascination, if you can call it that, was caused by me learning about Pentecopterus. Something about that sea scorpion really captured my attention, It really might be the most visually-striking one of them all.
I would love to bring into an origami form, but given how badly my recent pterygotus went, I've become weary.
As for my approaches to design, a lot of my understanding of origami comes from a combination of origami-themed literature and from having folded a lot of things over the years, and, especially early on, from unfolding what I have folded and looking at what the folds look like. I guess I have always been more interested in how the design aspect of origami works rather than the folding itself. For me, folding is the really tedious part. I know it sounds strange, but I enjoy solving the puzzle of the design itself. That's what has become the really fun part of origami for me. I probably have dozens of crease patterns which I haven't physically folded (but which I know are actually foldable, if I tried).
Part of it is that I think I've always been really good at the designing, but I've always been kind of a lousy folder.
The way I approach a model is variable. Sometimes I try to freehand a "sketch" of something off the top of my head, and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it olnly works partially and I get half the things I was looking for in the model but not the rest, and sometimes it starts looking like something else entirely and I decide to pursue that instead in future sketches (here 'sketches' mean actual physical folded doodles) and the story repeats - either it works out or it does not. So I do sometimes try to come up with new models by just folding and seeing whether it works out.
I guess I should have really started my explanation with something that may not immediately be obvious.
There also are "bases" which are simple folded shapes derived from traditional origami which already have a set number of flaps (the long pointy sticky outy bits) and some of my designs start off with such a base or a modiffied version of one. It's a really good way to get started with designing, because some basic structure is already premade for you essentially and all that remains is figuring out how to shape the base so that it looks like something. That's something I have been doing a lot very early on.
There also is a standardized set of maneuvers or fold actions you can do with paper and by combining the right sequence of these, it's not unlike placing lego bricks down to form a model. So much the same way lego has bricks, plates, tiles and slopes and other specialized shapes, origami has rabbit ear folds, petal folds, swivel folds, squash folds, inside and outside reverse folds, open and closed sink folds and so on. There also is a variety of ways paper can be swiveled or squashed, there are some standard types that reoccur in many designs across the board, but sometimes a model may come which requires a specific variation tailored to the specifics of that particular folding sequence.
There also are techniques which have been devised to facilitate adding detail into a simple starting structure, such as grafting and point-splitting - Grafting is essentially sectioning off stripe-shaped areas in the square itself which are often pleated to add toes to a model, and point-splitting is a technique which allows one long flap to be split into two shorter flaps if if the starting flap has its end point located on the edge of the paper, or four shorter flaps if said flap is located in the interior.
(Many of my non-arthropod models still utilize a base which employs traditional folding (not unlike the folding sequences of the traditional bases, just more complex) or even an actual traditional base in combination with either grafting or point splitting to create a completely new base structure for whatever critter I'm making.
There also are people who take a custom base someone made for one model and shape it to look like something else. Of course, some bases are more suitable for this exercise than others. Doing this is not common, but when the author of the original model is credited, it's not frowned upon in the origami community, at least to my knowledge.
A curious thing has happenned with my treefrog where I have actually independently came up with a base that was practically identical to a base somebody else designed for a treefrog before, and I contacted the person about it and he was okay with me presenting the model as my own, because the folding sequence I came up with was different to his, so it was obvious to him I didn't steal his idea - which is also interesting - that you can actually take a piece of paper with an idea in mind of what the desired structure should look like, and you can sometimes get there in more than one way.
Try as hard as you might, there really only is one basic way of making a frog from a square - a leg in each corner and the body somewhere in the middle. for some animals, there is much less wiggle room for creativity than in others.
Some of my models came about as variations on models I have made previously. for example, my Cephalaspis is a simplified Diplocaulus.
The dragons I've been experimenting with last year were all a result of my search for new increasingly more complex variations on the same theme.
My draco volans and kuehneosaurus only came about because thought the basilisk I made was inefficient with the front legs being located on the interior of the square (and thus taking twice as much paper than the smallest possible ammount) and turning the front legs into wings and shifting them further back on the body to make space for the new front legs which actually sit on the edge was what sparked these two designs in particular.
The technique I use for my complex arthropod models is called "boxpleating," which restricts the flap lengths to a, integer of units. Some people (like Robert Lang - incidentally, the above-mentioned treefrog guy) became the pioneers of "hexpleating," which is a pleating technique based on a grid of equilateral triangles rather than squares, which can make the resulting models more efficient than those which rely on traditional boxpleating (because an unfolded flap in a hexpleated model looks like a hexagon, whereas an unfolded flap in a boxpleated model looks like a square, and a hexagon is closer in shape to a circle than a square is). Why is this important? because in origami, the minimum area for any given flap is a circular region of paper. it really makes sense when you think about it. for a "flap" to really be a flap, it has to have a certain length, so if you pick any point on the paper to be the tip of said flap, the easiest (and most efficient) way of claiming the necessary ammount of paper for that flap is drawing a circle around the tip point of it.
now of course, on an actual model that circle really is a polygon, but it is still possible to design a model just by drawing the correct number of circles of the right radii into a square region of paper, which is what provides the framework for drawing the folds in. This technique is called "circle packing." This method provides the most efficient designs in terms of paper-efficiency, but it is also the most tedious technique for actual folding, because it can be very difficult to find reference folds to locate the center points of the various flaps.
That's why chose boxpleating as my method of choice. whatever I make, I base on a grid. I am forced to really generalize the flap proportions (to integers of units in length, for example, I can't do a flap which is 3.72 units long, so in that case I'd be forced to either go with 3 and make the flap shorter (which I always hate doing) or just round it up to 4 units and call it a day. The last option I'd have available to me in such a case would be making the flap 3.5 units long, just a smidge shorter than ideal, but that would force me to switch to units of half the size, which would then require me to figure out a way to restrict the pleats of half the intended width into as small an area as possible. Even though I was rather successful in this regard with my pterygotus model, this design decision was part of why it failed in the end, even though I was really proud of the design itself before actually having folded it.
I guess the method I use for complex models could be called "square-packing." In boxpleating, individual flaps are characterised by taking up a square region of paper, so by arranging squares, a grid-based model can be designed. The references are easy to find in this case, because not just the end points of flaps, but almost all the folds on the model are located on the grid itself, so the folding process starts with the grid, and that way you've laid out all but a few folds you're gonna need to fold the basic structure of the model.
Of course, this is not a very efficient technique, because a square with edge "a" covers a larger area of paper than a circle of diameter "a," which is why I have started exploiting "pyxthagorean stretches" in some of my latest complex models, because it combines the straightforwardness of a grid-based design with the paper economy of a circle-packed design. It also introduces folds which do not respect the original grid. This adds complexity to the design and difficulty to the folding process, but it also makes the crease pattern more interesting to look at, which as become increasingly more important aspect of design for me, because I mostly show my crease patterns alongside with the models, not just the models themselves.
the most common pythagorean stretch is probably the one based on the 3,4,5 triangle, but i've exploited a 5,12,13 triple on the 4th incarnation of my camel spider and a 20,21,29 triple on the still not yet folded and still unrevealed crease pattern I've uploaded recently. (the asymmetrical-looking picture which will hopefully produce a reasonably symmetrical model).
In any case, if origami design is something you really want to dig in, even just in theory, Robert Lang (can you tell I love the guy? 
The second edition of the book takes out a chapter on origami-based computer programming (rather a chapter that explains the guts of origami-related software that Lang has developed) and instead it adds a whole lot of extra visual guides which wasn't included in the first edition, chiefly more crease patterns and an entirely new chapter on pythagorean stretches.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even though I must admit that I did not fully understand everything you said, it is really interesting to learn more about such a rather obscure form of art. I have kinda tried my hand at it a while back but I quickly learned that I did not have the right talent or determination needed for it... it all turned out looking like a used napkin, which is why I have even more respect for origami artists now.
The way you described it, it sounds like there’s quite a lot of almost mathematical calculations going on in an artist’s head before tackling a new fold and I imagine one would need a pretty keen three-dimensional faculty of imagination to be able to even do the preliminary planning and ideation...
I checked out Robert Lang’s (who I keep confusing with Robert Langdon) origami btw and that really is some impressive stuff. Despite its complexity it has this air of simplicity about it which gives it a really interesting quality.
(Sorry for the rather short reply btw... I’m sometimes having trouble to respond to longer messages because I obviously can’t write all the confirmations that I hear ya which is what I’d do in person so my replies kinda feel puny in comparison)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't worry about short replies
I am lucky enough you tolerate my essays XD
Yes, Lang really does take a scientific approach to origami. No wonder though, he is a multiple-patent-holding physicist - or he was, before he decided to become a full-time artist.
Origami truly is one of the most mathematical art forms there are, maybe even the most mathematical art there is.
Though one can observe geometry in paintings and mathematics in music, origami is the only art form which not only is based on mathematics, but also helped to further mathematics (believe it or not, many mathematical problems have origami-based solutions, like dividing an angle into thirds, and it's also involved in any area of engineering where you need to fold something in a very specific way or when you need something big to fit a very confined area.
So origami has found its way into medicine, space exploration and aviation as well as the automotive industry.
Origami has provided solutions for folding an airbag in just the right way so that it can open as quickly as possible, and many more. It helped to fold large telescope mirrors and solar panels into tiny rocket capsules, and it made blood vessel implants possible as well. The implant is folded up so it can fit through the "pipes" so that it can be delivered precisely where it needs to go, and when in place, it opens up and keeps the blood vessel supported from the inside, so that it doesn't get clogged up by cholesterol.
I think architecture is the only form of art which is equally as mathematical as origami is, but the way I see it, architecture is a tool turned art, whereas origami is the exact opposite.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I even like your essays
Yeah, it’s quite fascinating how this form of art that is rather unknown to most people is actually present in so many different fields of science and our everyday lives. Seeing as it is such a mathematical form of art, I wonder if there’s a correlation between someone’s mathematical abilities and those in origami. For example: I suck both at maths (and physics) and origami, Lang is a distinguished physicist and world-class origami-artist. So maybe the more mathematically inclined have a different way of thinking and approaching problems that makes origami easier for them...
I totally agree with you on architecture btw... Much like a lot of things, what was once pure necessity and rather basic has become more and more ornate over the centuries. The thing about architecture is also that it has become a sort of status symbol though. Not only does living in a big and fancy house mean you’ve got a lot of money, it also means that the architect is rather well-off, not having to rely on smaller jobs of just residential blocks that are essentially just the basics but being able to embellish their work with things that have no purpose other than to look good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know whether it can be generalised like that. I am not a mathematical prodigy by any means, although being mathematically-minded may enable people appreciate origami on a different level, and there are many mathematicians mong origamists, but there are also purely artistically inclined people among world renown origamists as well, who don't have any professional scientific background.
The difference between them is in their approach to designing. While people like Lang tend to be very analytical, the non-scientists among origamists are more guided by instinct.
There are probably many origamists who are neither one or the other kind and mix and match the two approaches in a way which suits them the best, and I would say I am one of them as well.
My fascination with origami design started off just by me thinking it's a really cool skill to have and by my desire to figure out how stuff works.
I think I am a pretty decent origamists but I have always been struggling with math.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I don’t mean that one needs to be a mathematical prodigy to be good at it but in my experience, there are different ways of thinking that kinda play into the things one likes and is good at... and there is a more mathematical way of thinking. My theory is that people who think like that (they don’t have to be mathematical aces) are having less difficulty with folding origami. It doesn’t have to be professional or anything, it’s just a different way of tackling problems and stuff like that...
Yeah, I feel you... I’ve been trying to get into it a while back as well just because I liked the aesthetic and the artistic techniques behind it but I soon came to realize that I’m just not especially good at it
I’d say you’re more than just a decent origamist though...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know, knowing equations and formulas is a different beast. I think what really helps is having a positive attitude towards geometry and having a trained spatial imagination.
don't be discouraged by the initial failures, there are bumps on every road. You strike me as a patient person, and that's a great quality to have for folding. once you figure out what each of the symbols mean in the instructions, I think you would have little trouble interpreting models from diagrams.
designing your own models is an entirely different animal yet again, and it really requires years of experience from just folding. You need to develop a backlog of techniques and fold sequences in your head and that really takes time to get ingrained in your brain. This is what my toolbox is, besides the stacks upon stacks of different kinds of paper.
One other thing that is extremely important to designing is connecting the concrete world of subjects to fold with the abstract world of folds, and that is an extremely specific skill and that really takes a long time before the heureka moment comes.
Setting the goals or requirements for a design and then actually being able to include the specific features into the model is something that doesn't come naturally to anyone and takes years of gradually raising the bar for yourself and cultivating the ability.
Folding really is only about knowing what the symbols in the diagrams mean. I think you would see yourself progress by leaps and bounds if you challenged yourself to fold one model every day. No matter how bad you think you are, there are models simple enough that anyone with two hands can fold them, and I really mean it. Whenever you feel like trying to fold something, I am always just a comment away, I can link you to some models to start with.
designing something new is a much more challenging task, it adds another layer to the amount of problem solving that needs to happen before you can fold the model, because you essentially need to come up with your own instructions to begin with.
That's why the vast majority of people among origamists are just interpreters. They may be people who are much better at the actual folding part of origami than I am, but they don't design their own models. Either it's something they are just not interested in, or they haven't learned how to, for various reasons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I think something that people often forget about origami is that it very much is a craft like woodworking and the like. To perfect any of these crafts, one needs a vast knowledge and understanding of the tools, techniques and materials. For every one of these crafts, it is not difficult to make some small things... but really mastering it takes time, dedication and passion.
I will most likely stick to drawing and painting and I’ll get back into woodworking in art school but I’ll always have a deep appreciation for the craftsmanship involved in origami.
You bring up an interesting point though about origamists being interpreters. I feel like this is something that most arts and crafts have in common, they all build up from one another, utilize and adapt techniques and evolve by doing so. Although they are seen as separate, they are very much connected, inspiring and influencing one another and working in tandem. Nothing is truly new... like in nature, it evolves over time, moving from one generation to another until something new emerges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very much so.
All current origami designers stand on the shoulders of giants who came before them and work off of the findings of others, much like scientists.
That's the way it's always been.
What really strikes me about origami is the act of interpretation, and more so the fact that this is actually sort of built into origami. Sure, you can exhibit origami models in a gallery as static finished works, but workshops are still what draws most "outsiders" in and that's what's great about it. Origami seems to be the only type of visual art which sort of depends on fan interpretations to stay alive, the willingness of others to fold your models really is the one thing that decides how famous you are in the world of origami. It's not about how many people come see your exhibitions, it's about how many people you inspire ennough to make them want to fold as well. For this reason, origami is almost closer to music with its relience on people "singing along to your songs" than to most other sculptural arts.
what me and my friends in the czech origami society started to do to break away from a traditional workshop format and make things more interesting is actually live folding a model from a super large sheet of paper in front of a live audience, so that brings origami close to a theatre where people can see a model emerge from a plain sheet of paper right in front of them, but again, everyone who wants can take a small sheet and fold along with us as we narrate the folding process and take their own little version of what we're folding home.
And I'll have you know I really admire woodworkers myself.
I really enjoy sightseeing and going on tours in historical chateaus and the like, and seeing all the beautifully crafted furniture is one of the reasons why.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, that’s true... I never really thought about it but you are absolutely correct!
It is not an art for which it is enough simply to be seen or heard. While paintings can evoke feelings in the viewer and inspire them to paint on their own, they do not inspire people to do it just the same way. Instead, people might take away aspects and techniques to then adapt to fit their own preferences and abilities... but to do so, you really only need to look at it. for origami you really have to get in there and copy the works you like to learn these new techniques and acquire the aspects of it.
It does not necessarily inspire reflection but action.
That’s a great idea! Combining origami with performance art makes it a lot more accessible to people and brings it in another dimension. With just the finished model, you have something very static and you’re left wondering and speculating how it’s done but that reflection probably stops rather soon unless you yourself are versed in folding. Doing it live not only shows the static exterior but also all the interior bits, the process and the background. I reckon this brings in far more new fans than just the finished models as it also gives a people a deeper understanding and appreciation of what is involved in making the finished models...
I’m glad to hear that as I actually wanted to become a designer of furniture and a carpenter at one point. I did various internship and even got offered a couple of jobs before I decided to go another route.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's maybe unexpected, but origami really is an oddball among arts and crafts. Just in its affinities to seemingly unrelated fields and in the many ways it offers for presentation.
These are all thing I learned as I delved deeper into paperfolding over the years. The thing that caught my attention first hand was simply the variety of ways in which you can 'crumple' a sheet of paper to resemble something.
Also the physical ease of paperfolding to begin with and the low cost of playing with paper in general.
I guess origami is still a sort of paper magic to me even after all these years. You start with a humble sheet of paper, and there hardly is material more common, more nonexclusive than paper, but one can produce things from it which can change people's hearts. Even though all the necessary steps of the particular folding sequence can be pinpointed and analysed, the finished piece still can be viewed as something more than just a sum of its parts.
And that's really cool! Do you have pictures of your woodwork somewhere? (If you don't mind sharing of course, I don't mean to pry).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I totally agree, origami is pretty much bordering on magic. A lot more so than other arts because you do not add or remove anything from the base material but simply fold and bend it to form an object or an animal. You have the exact same mass before and after you’re done...
I mostly did stuff for others so I don’t really have anything here that I could take a picture of... I’ll make sure to take pictures of the newer stuff I do at school though. It looks like I’ll pretty much have free rein to do whatever I want, which is pretty cool. Most of the previous stuff I did were for furniture, chopping boards and other kitchen stuff but since I can do what i want, I will try my hand at art objects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, origami is still very much transformative rather than additive or substractive.
Ah, alright. I'll be looking forward to those photos then. It's really cool to know that your nickname here is actually thematic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>