Robert.J.Lang.-.Origami.Diagramming.Conventions.(article).pdf

Origami Diagramming Conventions: A Historical Perspective

Robert J. Lang

rjlang@home.com

Part I

Origami is an international phenomenon that has moved far beyond its traditional boundaries of

Japan and Spain. Its practitioners are found world-wide, and the language they communicate in is

made up of diagrams. The great strength of this language is its uniformity across the world. In this

series, based on a panel discussion at Convention ’88 and a diagramming questionnaire sent to

diagrammers around the world, I am recognizing existing standards of diagramming and proposing

new ones to further promote worldwide communication of the art. 1

Introduction

One of the difficulties facing a diagrammer is that of consistency with the past, his local folding group,

the national scene, and potential co-authors. In the case of The Friends 2 , there is also the question of

consistency with what has been printed before in convention programs, teaching sessions, and other

articles in the Friends’ Newsletter (such as David Shall’s concurrent series of articles). Minor

differences appear, for example, in symbols lists printed in the Friends’ Newsletter #27 (Fall of ’87)

and the Annual Convention ’88 program (Spring of ’88). When you bring in books, the situation gets

even more complicated. I have written, or am working on diagrams for, three different books, two with

a co-author. Because we each had strong opinions about what symbols were best, we ended up

compromising, and I must use a different set of symbols for each project. As confusing as this is for a

diagrammer, it is bound to be worse for the reader. 3

Before Convention ’88, a number of folders recognized that there was a need for standardization, and

The Friends have taken steps toward that end, for example, publishing the lists just mentioned. Before

the convention, I sent a questionnaire to some 25 diagrammers around the world; many returned not

only the questionnaire but sent pages of additional comments. At the convention itself, we held a panel

discussion on uniformity that included most of the American diagrammers and some overseas

participants as well. Its results, and the results of the questionnaire, will be included in the articles that

follow.

This article kicks off a series in which I will take a detailed look at diagramming symbols and

conventions. Where there have been competing claims, I hope to resolve them. Where there are gaps, I

hope to fill them in. I also will give some explanation for why to use a certain symbol. This series will

run as long as it takes to cover the material, so if you have strong disagreement with something here,

send me a letter and I’ll discuss it in a future installment.

These articles were written in 1989–1991. I’ve updated a few bits with these footnotes.

The Friends of the Origami Center of America , which is now called OrigamiUSA .

The next three books were solo efforts, and I’ve pretty much standardized on the consensus symbols

described here, as has a large part of the origami diagramming community.

Page 1

It would be nice to start with something simple, like a valley fold. We’re going to start even simpler than

that. Many of the comments on symbology that I received concerned generalities rather than specifics;

they took the form of basic principles to follow when diagramming a model. Let us begin with some of

those principles. Following these ideas will eliminate many of the bugaboos that have had readers

tearing their hair out, and they can help to resolve future questions of propriety in diagramming as

they arise.

Be consistent with the past

The way t hings have been done in the past has a big thing going for it: it is known to work, and it is

known to many. In origami diagramming, that means that unless there is pressing reason otherwise,

we should use the standard notation developed by Yoshizawa. To fully appreciate the change his

symbols made in the world of folding, one has only to examine some of the older Japanese books with

their dashes and P’s, or the modern German books with no arrows and no distinction between

mountain and valley folds. Yoshiza wa’s notation is clear, it has stood the test of time, and therefore it

should be the diagrammer’s first source. (Just what those symbols are will be shown later — these are

general principles at the moment.)

Yoshizawa is not the ultimate authority, though, because he does not diagram complicated models, and

his symbols are therefore somewhat limited. Many of the newer symbols, and most of the contentious

ones, were developed more recently to describe sequences that are not easily described by the standard

symbols. It would be unreasonable for the diagrammer, when confronted with an entirely new

sequence, to try to squeeze it into the existing symbols. And it would probably be equally uncomfortable

for the reader to follow. However, other authors have steppe d in to fill the gaps in origami symbology.

In the West, books by Harbin, Randlett, Sakoda, Kenneway, Montroll, Weiss, and Jackson, already

describe a multitude of sequences. Many of these books are, unfortunately, out of print, but they are

still used as a reference by many folders. Those that are out of print may be found in the libraries of

the major origami societies, and models from them continue to resurface in the periodicals and

publications of the major origami societies, so they are still accessib le. Consequently, if Yoshizawa

doesn’t have a symbol for it, one of these probably will.

This is not to say that you should never replace an old symbol with a new one — because in a very few

cases, that is exactly what I plan to suggest — but if you do, you had better have an overwhelmingly

good reason for it. For example, it was suggested at the panel discussion that dashes and dot-dot-

dashes for valley and mountain folds should be replaced by dots and dashes, respectively, because they

were easier for the reader to distinguish. Even if that were so (and I’m not saying it isn’t), the dashes

and dot-dot-dashes are so firmly entrenched in the minds of folders that making a changeover would

bring mass confusion to those already familiar with the art. So dashes and dot-dot-dashes will

remain. 4 (We won’t mention dot-dashes versus dot-dot-dashes yet). On the other hand, the Harbin

“repeat arrow” is less well established. It is avoided by several prominent authors (Randlett,

Weiss/Jackson, Montroll), has several shortcomings, and I am going to suggest a replacement for it

later on.

What I’ve done here is to collect from various sources symbols and drawing conventions that are

general, clear, and consistent with the past. I would like to think that the symbols in thi s series could

describe any situation that would ever arise, but I’m not that naive. Origami is developing technically at

an ever-increasing rate, and the art will almost certainly outstrip the capabilities of any description

language. Someday, a new proce dure will arise that cannot be easily diagrammed using the standard

notation. However, if you are diagramming a step, you should first try to use the symbols shown here;

However, in large crease patterns (such as the “crease pattern challenges” in Origami Tanteidan

Magazine , dashes and dot-dashes blur into incomprehensibility, an d use of two different colors of solid

line becomes a more useful tool. We should never let history and convention get in the way of clarity.

Page 2

and only if that is impossible or unreasonably difficult should you make up new ones. And even then,

keep simplicity, generality, and clarity uppermost in your mind.

Make the drawings stand alone

The goal of international origami communication can only be reached if anyone can read directions;

therefore, a set of drawings should not have to rely on language. Drawings should indicate all relevant

information. Verbal instructions should not be necessary to resolve ambiguities.

Make the text stand alone, if possible

Because many people work better from verbal descriptions than from diagrams, the diagrammer

should, if possible, include verbal directions sufficient in themselves to work through the model.

However, it is nearly impossible to meet this goal in complicated models. The verbal constructions

required simply to navigate around the model become daunting, and it is flatly impossible to describe

solely in words a step in which you bring twenty or thirty creases together (as often happens in box-

pleated models). In such cases, the verbal directions can still enhance the clarity of the drawings but it

would be impractical to strive for complete self-sufficiency. In general, though, beginners rely more

heavily on the words than experienced folders, so it is more important to get the words right on easy

folds than on hard ones.

Use letters to ind icate important features.

It is astonishing to note the amount of simplification that can come simply by sticking a single letter on

the drawing to indicate a point or flap. Compare “Fold the large bluntish point just left of the center

line of the model up to the point where the crease made in step 4 crosses the edge of the squash-folded

rabbit ear under the right lobe of the large, irregular portion of the model” to “Fold flap A to point C.”

On simple models that have words, the beginner has a tendency to follow only the words and not look

at the picture except as a last resort. The occasional reference to a letter on the figure has the helpful

effect of reminding such a person to look occasionally at what the drawing is doing.

Be grammatically correct

Striving for a clear and unambiguous verbal description means, among other things, that you must

stick to a consistent origami grammar. It is well-established in English-language origami books (e.g.,

the Harbin/Randlett books) that origami nouns are not hyphenated, but verbs are. Thus, I reverse-fold

the flap into the interior, but I flatten out the reverse fold . Is that a double rabbit ear ? It was, but I

triple-petal-folded it a few minutes ago.

Similarly, while the names of different moves are nouns and should thus be in lower case, those that

incorporate names, such as Elias-stretch (verb) or Elias stretch (noun) should have the name

capitalized. The names of bases, on the other hand, are proper names, and should be entirely

capitalized: Bird Base, Waterbom b Base, Preliminary Base. (Okay, Preliminary Fold.) Whether you

capitalize the name of the final model is up to you. If it is simply a description (“This is a bear.”), it

should be lower case. If it is a title (“Man Riding a Unicycle at Dusk”), it should probably be

capitalized.

Use arrows to indicate motion

An arrow should be used only to indicate motion or action: movement of a flap, pressing here,

squeezing there, pulling this, et cetera. Specifically, it should not be used to point out a particular

feature or to convey factual information (see figure 1). In older origami books ( Origami Dokuhon , for

one) you will find a different type of indicator; it is called a leader, and consists of a very thin line

extending from the information to the drawing. Leade rs are used widely in mechanical drawing. They

should be used in origami as well.

Page 3

This flap

moves.

Figure 1

Use a leader to indicate

information about the model.

Use an arrow to indicate

motion or action.

Don’t leave the reader dangling

One of the greatest cruelties a diagrammer can perpetrate upon the reader is illustrated by the

following scenario. In step 113, we are inst ructed to perform an exceedingly complicated series of

closed sinks and to turn the paper over. Step 114, therefore, shows the opposite side of the model. The

paper does not get turned back over until step 243, at which point we discover we folded step 113 all

wrong, but it’s too late now. Always show the result of any procedure immediately.

Figure 2

What happened? Show

results before turning the

paper over.

This seems like an easy scenario to avoid, but there is actually a very good reason why it happens all

the time. Drawing diagrams is tedious and hard work, and it see ms like a great waste of time to draw a

step in which nothing happens. The diagrammer must realize, however, that his goal is to make things

as easy as possible for the reader, not for himself (painful though that may be). 5

Show one step per drawing

For much the same reason, it is common practice to cram as many steps into each drawing as is

possible. This is not only confusing to the novice, it is not the way anyone actually folds a model.

Suppose you are folding an animal with four legs and a head. You don’t make one fold on the front

legs, one on the back, one on the head, another on the front, another on the back, another on the head,

a third on the front, a third on the back, a third on the head, and so forth. The way most people would

In the days of pen and ink, the tendency of diagrammers to be sparing with their drawings was

understandable (if not necessarily forgivable); but when duplication-and-modification is a matter of a

few mouse clicks on a computer, there really is no excuse for not showing the result of every step.

Page 4

fold the animal is to entirely fold the front legs, then entirely fold the back ones, then turn attention to

the head (or some similar permutation). If people don’t fold a model in a particular order, it shouldn’t

be diagrammed in that order. The only reason to cram many procedures into a single step is to cut

down on the amount of drawing; but again, that is a case of the diagrammer placing himself ahead of

the reader, and that is not the proper state of affairs.

Distort the model for clarity

If a diagrammer were to draw a model in a mathematically ideal way, it would convey very little

information: all edges would line up, all creases would run all the way to corners; multiple layers

would perfectly overlap. In practice, then, the diagrammer must introduce small distortions: gaps

between edges, layers that do not line up. Such distortions convey far more information and should be

included wherever appropriate (of course, they are also harder to draw).

Figure 3

(A) is more accurate, but

(B) is more informative.

Along those same lines…

Show multiple layers whenever possible

Here is where many diagrammers fall down on the job: if a model has multiple edges stacked up on

each other, SHOW the multiple edges. If there are too many, you don’t have to show them all, but at

least show enough to indicate that there’s more than one layer the re. This is far more illuminating to

the reader than a mathematically exact silhouette of the model.

And now, having established those basic ideas, on to some symbols.

Part II.

Lines: edges, creases, mountain and valley folds

In Part I, I wrote of many of the general principles that should guide the origami diagrammer. They

may be summarized roughly as, “make it simple,” “make it consistent,” and “make it thorough.” How

these principles are actually put into practice will be the topic for the rest of this series. In this

installment, I’ll talk about the bread and butter of diagramming: lines, mountain folds and valley folds.

There is a fair amount of craftsmanship, if not artistry, in diagramming. At the very least, there are

distinctly recognizable styles of diagramming, just as there are distinct styles of folding. In attempting to

define the standards of diagramming for maximum clarity, we must avoid squeezing individual

expression entirely out of them. Our goal is clarity, not clones. Thus, a small amount of variation

between different diagrammers’ work is inevitable. However, these variations should be in points of

style — line weights, quality, variations in proportions — and not in basic symbols.

Edges versus creases

Page 5

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: