On 8 Jul 2021, at 9:06, Gerardo @neorigami.com <gera...@neorigami.com> wrote: > > In her email, on Monday the 5th, Lisa B. Corfman mentioned we need a > world-wide accepted definition of the concept "traditional origami". Lisa > suggested to start by asking different origami platforms for general input, > and then ask world-wide origami societies to come to an agreement embodied in > a detailed document. She also asked if all traditional models "are in the > creative commons". > When I saw Lisa’s email I immediately started drafting a reply, but I was on vacation and put it on the back burner. Since then, other people have said 90% of what I was planning on saying; generally, I’m especially in agreement with Gerardo’s latest email, so I’ll just add the one thing that I think has not been commented on much in this thread.
While I agree that international standards for criteria, symbols and terminology are helpful and can be desirable, I think it’s nearly impossible to demand uniformity, for many reasons. Even the “standard” Yoshizawa-Randlett system of symbols isn’t truly uniformly applied, nor the “standard” terminology. As someone who (like many on this mailing list) uses origami books in several languages and participates in classes in different languages and countries, I can attest that there can be significant variation in terminology even within the same country and language. The same is true about the details of the symbols used in diagramming. The more closely you look and the more books you look at, the more you find variations and differences. Even what counts as “origami” can be up for debate. Is “Golden Venture” aka “3D origami” really origami? How much (if any) cutting is OK? How much (if any) glue, and in what kind of use: to glue pieces together that don’t have a folded lock? To help strengthen a folded lock? To keep layers together? Does the paper have to be square? Or a regular or convex polygon? We can find examples from recognized origami books from the first half of the 20th century and earlier that include cuts, glue, non-square paper, etc. Do the creases have to be clearly defined? Does the paper have to end up with any folds in place, or can it just be creases in the paper? Does it even have to be paper, or do folded metal and wood count as origami? As recent discussions in various forums show, There are things that are generally accepted today to be origami that don’t fit the general “rules.” The fact is, the origami community isn’t a structured community with any centralized authority that can impose norms. This makes achieving and maintaining uniformity of terminology, symbols, standards, etc., practically impossible. So, while we can (and should) discuss the issue and encourage a uniform application of the term “traditional” as a substitute for the name of an author when the model’s origin is lost to us because the model has been handed down for generations and consequently is in the public domain (or whatever definition finds consensus), there’s no practical way to enforce or guarantee that it will be respected. I do think the term is useful but should be used very sparingly and only for models that truly fit the description. A well-curated source including all and only the truly traditional models (according to the definition I mention above) with a historical commentary would be a boon to the origami community. I’d certainly buy it! Best, Matthew
