Dear friends and art lovers, We thank you for raising this issue and creating a discussion about that aspect of the competition. The original idea was to put the models to the test, and not the creators. We definitely cannot say for sure if there is anything else in the world as such, but it was not a parameter in the decision-making - we truly wanted to choose the *work *and not the *artist*. We do not nominate the artist of the year, but the creation itself - the most artistic model, or the best folding sequence.
Of course, this is only our third year in running the award and as we always wish to get better, we have open ears for any remark. We will discuss this issue in the CFC monthly meetings and between ourselves, to see if there is a better way to make it happen. We do not assume anything about our voters. We do not state this anonymity is to avoid unwanted bias or misconduct of any kind. We just wanted you to vote for the work and not its creator. For this event, we will not change the rules, of course. For us, Art is undefinable. Please show us a definition and we will show you a work that does not answer that, and still people will call it art. For many people, art is whatever is hung on the wall and evokes some feelings inside them. Those feelings can happen even if you do not know who created that. In many cases, having the name there does not change the fact you do not know who made this work. To see that the artist is Mankel Ibrahim Saada near a painting of the sunset over Fuji does not change a lot when you try to judge what you feel about it. I hope you understand us better now. Ilan and Nicolas On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:01 PM Laura R via Origami < origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote: > 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), 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 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 > > > -- Ilan Garibi Origami artist and designer www.garibiorigami.com
