Dear Hans, dear Laura, stimulating replies, yours. Thanks Ilan for the clarification.
Here are my comments, long comments :( Hans, first of all, please don't take this personally, because I used "if you think..." combined with harsh tones. I wasn't referring to you, it was my way of saying "if someone thinks...". I well know (and I agree) that most of the time we all inherently separate the artifact from the creator, in any field, in any art form or production. Although it makes sense at the level of mass consumption (in which numbers count almost exclusively), this for me does not help to promote, support and enhance art in general, and artifacts in particular. For this reason, while acknowledging that knowing the author (writer for a book, director for a film, creator for an origami...) doesn't change anything for most of us, I will always oppose the tendency to put secondly the identity of those who are behind a creation, of any kind. For me, the only way to promote something is to promote who (or what) creates. All the rest is sterile, pure and unique exercise in style, an end in itself. In the case of the competition in question, therefore I wonder what it can lead to origami itself, a competition that ignores the creator, and focuses on the final result. I don't understand its meaning, and for me this is, somehow (at the end) to the detriment of Origami. The last ten years of my life have been dedicated to frequenting contemporary art, between large international fairs and important European galleries, and the first thing that greets me when I approach a work at Art Basel is the gallery owner who begins by speaking to me of the artist and of the genesis of the work, even before the art piece in itself. And this is how I became terribly passionate about contemporary art, which tends not to be understood by contemporaries themselves, precisely because they don't know how to approach it, they are not helped, guided in this (as happened to me). I learned that there is no work without knowing its creator, there is no film without knowing the director or screenwriter, because for me even the mere technique is the fruit of the creative process (and the latter is strictly personal, nominal). Regarding the bias, I believe that what is called prejudice for me is, on the contrary, the necessary completion, is part of the artifact, because in my view you will never be able to separate creation by creator, without subtracting something (value?) from the creation. Let me give you a rather clear example. One of the artists who most excites me is Joseph Beuys (moreover - pure coincidence - born and lived in the same city where I have lived for 7 years, and his family home at the time is 100 meters from my house). Beuys joined the Nazi youth, and went to war fighting for Nazism. And this is also what I want to know, because in this way I can form an opinion on his artistic development and on why he managed to interpret artistically those 70s and 80s so intensely and well. Anyone could have done his works (as they always say in the field of contemporary art), but at that time he only did them, and for me it is essential to understand why. Of course, I don't go that far in origami, I'm much less involved and committed, and to me, probably, the name of the creator of a model will say little, but it doesn't matter, because the fact remains that it is only knowing the author that I will be able to grow my knowledge and passion for Origami. As for what "art" is, I don't think it's relevant, nevertheless here I would like to be clear: I speak of "origami art" only for convenience, for simplicity, because everyone uses this definition, but I really don't consider Origami at all as art. For me it is a sophisticated and very complex and intriguing craftsmanship, but craftsmanship remains, because I really don't think I'm able to identify any artistic and expressive path in origami, as I know it when I look at the forms of art that I know and that they fascinate me. In the first part of Laura's email, I perceive a sort of importance of the creator's identity and She might regret not having paid enough attention to it at the time. Here, this is precisely one of the things that I consider very important: to raise awareness of the knowledge of who is behind a work, in all their life and personality. And since this is a very complicated path, it is essential that this type of origami activism is alive and growing. Regards, Lorenzo On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 15:19, 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 > -- Lorenzo Lucioni Duesseldorf - Germany lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com
