Not strictly between origami artists, though; between an origami artist (Lang) and a painter. She painted his crease patterns, well-recognizable, with one or two changes that my eye parses as annoyingly illegal.
If you're not into origami, you may think a crease pattern is just an unintended byproduct -- what you happen to get when you unfold a model. This isn't the case, as the article explains. These things are carefully designed, and are the heart of the engineering process. Models in books or on display sometimes come with diagrams of the pattern. Receiving a model as a gift, one may very well unfold it flat to look at the crease pattern and see how it was done.
So I guess this is sort of like finding a pretty geometric pattern in someone's source code (that they put there!), and painting it.
I think it's too much of a shortcut to just take his crease patterns without attribution. She's an artist; she can learn the art and make her own. It's not as though it's a unique insight on her part that the useful patterns are beautiful in an abstract, geometric way. We (origami enthusiasts) all think they are. The paintings are beautiful and intriguing, but the art that makes them so isn't hers; it's Lang's.
I'm all for remixing and free information, but . . . I think at a minimum, attribution would be polite.
To be fair, the piece makes no mention of both of the artists as 'origami artists'. The title depicts them as 'origami enthusiasts'. To be fair I initially had a bit of a problem with the description, but then I read the materials concerning Lang's claim and I will agree that the artist somewhat of a origami admirer (so the title is correct).
Though, I absolutely agree that at a minimum, permission and attribution would be polite. I can't imagine on what ground the painter thinks they are standing on, as the 'inspiration' is so overwhelmingly overt. But as an origami 'enthusiast' myself, I'll watch this with an interested and slightly sad eye.
If you're not into origami, you may think a crease pattern is just an unintended byproduct -- what you happen to get when you unfold a model. This isn't the case, as the article explains. These things are carefully designed, and are the heart of the engineering process. Models in books or on display sometimes come with diagrams of the pattern. Receiving a model as a gift, one may very well unfold it flat to look at the crease pattern and see how it was done.
So I guess this is sort of like finding a pretty geometric pattern in someone's source code (that they put there!), and painting it.
I think it's too much of a shortcut to just take his crease patterns without attribution. She's an artist; she can learn the art and make her own. It's not as though it's a unique insight on her part that the useful patterns are beautiful in an abstract, geometric way. We (origami enthusiasts) all think they are. The paintings are beautiful and intriguing, but the art that makes them so isn't hers; it's Lang's.
I'm all for remixing and free information, but . . . I think at a minimum, attribution would be polite.