> > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 22:05:51 +0300 > From: Saadya Sternberg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Origami] I'd like to propose a definition > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; > format=flowed > > Dear Jorge, > > I've never liked the conjunction of words "dry tension" and am > holding out for its complete abandonment. So don't expect help from > me there. > > Lots of moves in origami, e.g. a petal-fold, sink etc. involve the > paper being pulled, if that's what you mean by tension (yet the > results are not what you are thinking of); and after the pulling the > shape is quite happy to stay as it is, so it is no longer in > "tension". The "tension" part of this term thus seems to me > completely misleading. And the "dry" is not much better. The normal > state of affairs is folding with dry paper. Nor is there any "wet > tension". Nor is wet-folding and letting paper dry the only way of > fixing a shape in its 3D state--you could start with foil-paper, end > with glazes, and so forth. So even using "wet" as the imagined > contrast is a bad choice. > > Saadya, this is what I was trying to accomplish, to stir some interesting conversation on the subject.
I concur with you to an extent but can understand why it was called "dry", maybe it was to differentiate it from 3D shapes obtained by wet folding and to that extent by the use of foil. Your other part was very close to what I'm looking for, the definition "any angled crimp, that is pair of MV folds (straight, curved or combined), that ends in a point in the interior of a flat sheet--not its edge--will necessarily decrease the angle there from 360 to something less, by up to whatever the angle is at the point of the crimp. So you will necessarily get a cone-like shape there, which will be three-dimensional, unless and until it is flattened. End of story" Is a much better way to describe what I said by "It is usually achieved by having one layer of paper over another one, each one of them with a different area"". But for the right definition of whatever this might be called, there is something still missing, because the paper staying by itself in that condition is not expressed. What do you think of adding something along the lines of "being its own locking mechanism without the need of anything else"? -- Jorge Jaramillo
