Thus spake "Origami on behalf of Gerardo @neorigami.com"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
on 8/22/17, 10:50 AM:
… regarding my question: if a traditional base + one fold could be
considered
an original model? … For
me it's the difference between claiming authorship over a model and for it
to be unclaimable. Maybe the general consensus is that a traditional model
+ one fold is almost the same as the base, and thus, their both
unclaimable. Or maybe the general consensus is that one fold is enough to
transform a traditional model into an original model, allowing me to
declare it my work and kindly asking others to acknowledge it.
My thoughts: it still comes down to what one means by “an original model”, or,
“is claimable.” The way I would rephrase what I *think* you mean by “is
original” or “is claimable” is, “do my contributions to this artwork display
significant creativity and novelty?”
So, a question like that is first, entirely subjective. What seems creative
and/or novel to me might not be so to you, and vice-versa. (I try to refrain
(not always successfully) from claiming that my personal tastes in art
represent some objective standard. ;o))
But also, the assessment is very dependent on the specifics of the model and
the particular fold being added. If “the base” is “an unfolded square,” and “a
single fold” is “the fold that creates Jackson’s One-Fold Elephant”, then I’d
say yes, it is original and claimable (by Jackson, of course). There’s lots of
cases where one fold wouldn’t meet the creative/novel criteria, though, at
least, in my estimation. There are perhaps even cases where adding ZERO folds
might make something original/claimable (see Marcel Duchamps); context matters,
too.
So, I don’t think there’s a general answer as to the question as it was
originally phrased: my answer would have to be “it depends.”
Best,
Robert
