I had my reservations about chiming in initially, but this conversation has truly evolved into something intriguing. Back when I was just a young girl in the early 60s, I delved into the world of origami using the limited books available in the market. Those books didn't bear the names of authors, but that didn't bother me much, as my focus was solely on deciphering the diagrams. It was only later in life that I discovered Isao Honda had penned those books (though to what extent remains a mystery; it might have been a fusion of his ideas and the publisher's graphic team). Moving into the 70s, I began amassing books by Robert Harbin and a handful of other origami authors. It's still quite astonishing to me that I managed to retain the names etched on those covers, enough to refer to the books by the author's name. For instance, I'd say, "Oh, this is the Kasahara book," or "Here's the Harbin book," and so on. Quite a feat, I must say. However, I didn't pay heed to the names that Harbin so meticulously included to credit the creators of those models. If I had taken the time to read those names, I would've been taken aback to discover, for example, that an Argentine artist from my own country, Ligia Montoya, held a special place as one of Harbin's favored sources for captivating designs. So, that's how things were during my formative teenage and early adult years – rather oblivious, one might say. And this is where I connect what I'm saying with Lorenzo's question. How many artists can I recognize in the grid provided by CFC? Quite a few, right? Therefore, the purpose of keeping the artists anonymous becomes diluted (by 30%, 50%, 10%?) It's not about the percentage; what matters is that the condition of anonymity doesn't apply equally to everyone. It might be worth asking the contest organizers if they think this undermines the proposal. Even if they haven't noticed it, voters might feel somewhat bothered when they "discover" artists who are supposed to remain anonymous. In other global competitions where anonymity is a requirement, it might be more challenging to discern the artist's touch. For instance, university art contests, international fair contests involving young individuals starting their artistic careers, and primarily in literature competitions. Lastly, let's consider an extreme and theoretical example: the contest aims to decide between two origami pieces. Both are submitted anonymously. However, one is easily recognizable, while the other is not. Does the condition of anonymity hold true in this case? If not, from what point onward would it be appropriate for the contest organizers to include the anonymity requirement for participants?
Laura Rozenberg > On Aug 21, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Papirfoldning.dk <h...@papirfoldning.dk> wrote: > >> You might refer to the opportunity for the author to submit its work >> anonymously, which is surely fair and which is much different than something >> decided as general rule for the competition. > Also that, but not primarily. > >> Furthermore, there's a big misunderstanding about "bias": when I judge an >> artifact I like to do that in a certain context, and the context includes >> (among some aspects) the identity of the creator. This does not definitely >> lead to a bias, this lead to a better understanding of the genesis of the >> piece I'm going to vote. >> In my opinion, if anyone thinks to be able to assign a fair "vote" without >> contextualising with the author identity and background, well to me it's at >> least naive. >> >> Voting for an artifact is not like voting for the better colour for the >> façade of a public building. >> >> Does anyone of you like contemporary art and visit fairs, exhibitions, >> galleries and so on? >> I can assure you can find a "pole stuck in the ground" and quoted hundreds >> thousands dollars, because it comes from a whole artistic path of the >> artist. And it's not just "because the market". > Certainly, it may be relevant to include the artist's background and > motivation in the analysis of their artworks, and I fully agree that for some > pieces of art the value lies solely with the artist and not with the work. > Which may lead to high prices, or conversely in extreme cases to cancelling > the art works or even destroying them. > > It is also possible to analyse a piece of art without knowing anything about > the artist. Some arts people seem to believe that is main or even only right > way to do it. > >> In other word, if you think you can "detach" a piece of art from its >> creator, and still be able to judge it, well... to me you have no any idea >> of what art is. > Fair enough. Personally, I like to read books based on their contents, seeing > films without knowing the actor or instructor names, and as for paintings, > I'm pretty sure that most people appriciate art as is, and not due to the > painter's name, and yes, I acknowledge that "most people" at best have a > vague notion of what "art" is. > > I also really like to see the evolution of works by a single artist, to see > how they develop and to relate that with the artist's life. That is > interesting, and, as you advocate, says something, perhaps deeper, but at > least different about the works. > > The two viewpoints of art are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes you just have > to let go and appriciate an object on its own. Going on to include the artist > in the analysis provides more aspects in the interpretation, but you also > loose something, get biased, and risk evaluating the work based on > misunderstandings about the artist. > > In a competition, however, if the artists are not anonymous, you accept that > it is not the works alone that compete, but also their names, celebrity, sex, > race, religion, lgbtq+ status etc. > > I can only assume that those establishing anonymous art competitions are arts > professionals who know what they are talking about. > > As for origami, it is fine that we have both kinds of competitions. I find it > of greater importance that they think about origami in terms of art. The > works have brief descriptions, and some of those contribute to the analysis > you ask for by providing some context, even if it is just a bit. > > Mostly we see people think about origami as fun, utility or ingenuity. Even > in the present competition I feel that many of the works are there because "I > could fold that", and not because of some deeper meaning or goal. I'm > currently consulting for an origami exhibition at an arts museum > (https://www.museumforpapirkunst.dk/dk/hands-on-origami > <https://www.museumforpapirkunst.dk/dk/hands-on-origami>), and I love that > the works there are included because some arts professionals believe they > should be there. > > By the way, note that at the link https://cfcorigami.com/award-entries-2023 > <https://cfcorigami.com/award-entries-2023> they are not too dogmatic. Some > of the works are known from other contexts (I recognise some of them), and > others are not really anonymous, with names mentioned in the description or > in the accompanying diagrams. > > Best regards, > Hans
