> On Mar 6, 2017, at 12:38, Zack Brown <zacha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But now that he's dead, I would find it unfathomable that he would > wish his life's work, which he took such pains to preserve, to simply > wink out of existence as age or fire ultimately claims these unique > and fragile works. Would he really so carefully preserve them, and > then desire to keep them utterly unseen and unappreciated after his > death, until they rotted away? That doesn't sound realistic at all.
First, thanks to Robert for some sound advice. Second, as someone who also visited with the Yoshizawas a number of times, and as a professional artist, and as a loud mouthed schnook who has sounded off on origami art before, Zack are you mad? Seriously, the art is the art. If it is cared for, it will last a long, long time. The art itself is the legacy. It was made lovingly by the artist, hopefully to his satisfaction, and is being maintained for future generations to enjoy. There's no basis, other than the origami community's own biases, for requiring instructions to exist to perpetuate the legacy of an artist or his art. As I used to say, does the lack of paint-by-numbers kits reduce Van Gogh's legacy? Do we bemoan the fact that there aren't step-by-step instructions to recreate Guernica? Must there be a YouTube video teaching us how to paint the Mona Lisa? I get it. You want to fold these models, and others do, too. And so you proposed this plan. Fine. But don't you dare pretend that this is about anything but that desire. Don't presume to speak for someone you don't know. What you find unfathomable and unrealistic speaks only to your own thoughts. We are not all the same. ---------- Joseph Wu, Origami Artist (via iPhone) e: josep...@origami.as w: http://www.origami.as flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/josephwuorigami/ facebook: http://www.facebook.com/joseph.wu.origami
