On 10/28/2014 6:44 PM, David Mitchell wrote:
My origami journey has, however, led me to a completely different perspective.
That, precisely, is the point. You are giving your opinions based on your 'completely different' perspective of origami. Yet you seem to be expressing your opinions as if your opinions apply to the different genres of origami and origami as a whole. The narrow 'qualities' you seek are clearly not easily found in much of the many of the different genres of origami widely practised today. That does not mean that modern origami is devoid of positive aspects, but that the many other positive aspects that attract many - if not most - enthusiasts of origami today are simply not shared by you. If you had stated that your opinions apply to the your preferred genre of origami only, i.e. simple, ultra simple origami or what have you, your opinions would have been more acceptable.
. To judge an origami design you need to fold it.
Precisely my point. You seem, however, prepared to adversely judge origami designs not within your limited sphere of preference of others without folding the designs. Origami has come a long way since the days of Fred Rohm and Neal Elias. Perhaps if your father had not stepped in as your retoucher and left the job to you, your views would have been markedly different from those of us who were left to our own devices.
Yes, but, surely, the virtues reside in the heart? Yes, but only if the 'heart' is clearly defined, which it has not. I do not consider 'qualities' that satisfy only desires of oneself as virtues (i.e moral excellence, uprightness, goodness, etc - Concise Oxford Dictionary). Virtues ought to be beneficial to others and society at large as well. Ron
