Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami
From: Dawn Tucker via Origami <origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> To: "origami@lists.digitalorigami.com" <origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 8:40 PM Subject: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and where, and when? Dawn Hello Dawn, and all: I think that this is as good a place as any to mention a few things from a conversation that I had with Mr. Yoshihide Momotani, back in 1998, in Paris--about a dozen or so of us were there to exhibit our origami creations at the Carrousel du Louvre. Mr. Momotani explained to me that he had been researching the history of paper folding as it was employed in the original Kindergarten, prescribed by Friedrich Froebel. Mr. Momotani had traveled to Germany to examine original documents, materials, and models used in the origami lessons for Kindergarten. From his investigations, he postulated two ideas that I found most interesting. 1. The use of the word "Origami" as it pertains to modern paper folding activities was the direct result of German texts for Kindergarten paper-folding exercise being transliterated into Japanese after Kindergarten was introduced in Japan. Froebel simply used the German words "Papier Falter" (paper folding) to identify this activity. "Papier Falter" was directly transliterated to Origami for use in the Japanese Kindergarten texts. Prior to that, many Japnese words were variously used to identify a wide variety of paper craft that included folding of some kind. Mr. Momotani also explained to me that prior to the influences of Kindergarten, the Japnese word "Origami" was more commonly used as a benediction of certification or a "diploma". 2. The modern imperative to use one square, only folding, was also a direct influence from Kindergarten. Froebel chose only those models that could be foldable from a single uncut square. Back then there were a small number of such models and not all were Japanese in origin. The Pajarita and other such "Windmill Base" models are representied in his curriculum. Froebel's reasons for the single square, no cuts, suited the values of his learning imperative, that of creative manipulations discoverable within constraints. Froebel's origami unit was, I believe, the 18th "Gift". Each Gift was a prescribed activity that paired specific materials with creative manipulations. There was building with strings, blocks, sticks, slats, peas and toothpicks, paper cutting paper weaving... As Kindergarten flourished, materials were manufactured and packaged for use in the Gift exercises. Among these was the invention of what would become our modern pack of assorted solid color origami paper. Froebel's folding paper packs were 4-inches square, color on one side only. Why color on one side only? Because, like wallpaper and gift wrap, only one side showed when the project was complete. Why waste money and time coloring the other side? The unintended added advantage to one side being left white was that the front side vs. the back side could be easily distinguished during teaching and learning. Anyway, I hope that I have represented without error what Mr. Momotani told me all those years ago. Based upon his postulations, I am fond of telling people that creative "Origami" is not an ancient Japanese art. It is a modern, international art form. All the best, Michael LaFosse
Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami
Dawn Tuckerwrote: >My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a folded piece from being called origami? As always it is helpful to look at what David Lister wrote on this subject. See his article 'To glue or not to glue' in the Lister List ... which is oddly entitle Glue and Origami in the index. http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/lister/glue.php There is also an article in the list on cutting: http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/lister/cutting.php I don't always agree with his opinions or conclusions ... but he provides historical information on which an informed opinion can be founded. Dave
Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami
Den 2. okt. 2017 kl. 19.06 skrev Dawn Tucker via Origami: > > My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a > folded piece from being called origami? I've got origami books, written by > those we consider to be origami masters, venerable Japanese folders, whose > instructions include a little snip here, a drop of glue there... There are > traditional origami models (perhaps hundreds of years older than those who > would question them) that require a small cut or a piece of tape. Why do so > many now say those models don't meet the definition of origami, and say so as > if it were the gospel of folding? One thing about origami that makes it so great for design, is that you put up a fixed set of rules, and then try to solve your problem within the confines of those rules. The rules challenges you to be inventive. How do I get five petals from a square with four corners? How do I make a centipede (with hundreds of legs) from a square? Conversely, you challenge the rules. Who says we must use a square? Use a pentagon, or five pieces of paper, for the flower with five petals. Instead of using thin, thin paper and complicated crease patterns, use a simple fold to obtain a pair of legs and then extend the paper to a hundreds of units long strip. At the recent BOS convention I exhibited such a millipede, 1150 legs from a 25 mm x 1350 cm strip of paper. John Smith wrote a brief, but profound article many years ago, “Origami Profiles”, http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/jonsmif.php exactly on those rule sets. Last Friday during a talk on origami I mentioned the almost anecdotal Babylonian papyrus map, folded as you do with maps. Someone in the audience asked when folding paper is origami? Yes, linguistically they mean the same. No, intuitively folded paper is not necessarily paperfolding. After weaving around with maps and NASA and origami, I came up with that for folding paper to be origami, it needs to end up being a model in its own right, such a plate, a box, an elephant, a piece of abstract art, etc. Maps and NASA do not meet this criterium. However, the DO use origami *techniques*. Best regards Hans PS: Yes, Golden Venture Origami (or the horrible term, 3D-origami) is origami. There is really not any principled distinction between that and other LEGO like modulars like the many Sonobe modulars, or the great animals by Max Hulme (also on exhibition at the BOS exhibition). And no, you don’t need to love folding a particular genre of something for it to be origami. Conversely Hans Dybkjær Site: papirfoldning.dk Society: foldning.dk
Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami
>>But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and >>where, and when? Old tyme-y origami had cuts in it so I wouldn't say that original origami didn't allow cuts. I don't know who or when the idea of no cuts, no glue, no tools came to be (see Pure Origami page below).Back in the 1970's, John Smith developed Pureland Origami which is even more restrictive than Pure Origami. Read more: http://www.origami-resource-center.com/pure-pureland.html I don't mind when people have opinions but as Robert Lang says, those are just opinions. There was a time when I ONLY folded modular origami and I can say with definition that there are MANY beautiful origami models that are made with assembled units. In fact, the more simple the unit, the more amazing the feat. Like programming with zeros and ones. omg. Diana
[Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami
It seems as though the consensus (so far) is that "Golden Venture Origami" is a an enjoyable paper craft that, for a variety of reasons, doesn't meet with definition of origami, as least as practiced by those who took the time to reply. I'm OK with that. I've seen some pretty things made from the Golden Venture units, but it doesn't appeal to me. However, I'm a "fold and let fold" sort of person. If you want to do it, just know that some will agree and some will disagree on whether or not what you're making is origami. Some will say it's a matter of semantics, and other will argue on the principles of it. Fold what you like, and enjoy! My post is in response to the comment by Sunil Dhavalikar, who argued against Golden Venture as origami, but for kusudama(s?) and free-form folding. He concluded with:"With that in mind, the free form shaping is stillorigami as long it produces the result just by folding, without cutting or gluing. Having said that, I also enjoy golden Venture ?origami? and so does my nephew who received a 3D ?Minion? from me on his Birthday." My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a folded piece from being called origami? I've got origami books, written by those we consider to be origami masters, venerable Japanese folders, whose instructions include a little snip here, a drop of glue there... There are traditional origami models (perhaps hundreds of years older than those who would question them) that require a small cut or a piece of tape. Why do so many now say those models don't meet the definition of origami, and say so as if it were the gospel of folding? I'm not arguing with Sunil, as he certainly isn't the first person to make the point, but rather I'm responding to his comment. My question is about the history of the "No scissors, no glue" [or tape or staples] philosophy of origami. I recently attended a convention where a boy of perhaps 12 constantly heckled any teacher who mentioned the benefits on a well-placed drop of glue, or any cutting - even when it was a matter of cutting the paper to size. Personally, I'll admit I'm disappointed when I fall in love with a finished model and then find it requires cutting or adhesives, but I wouldn't say that it doesn't meet the definition of origami. (Nor was I raised to make my opinions known in such a rude manner (speaking of the 12-year old, not Sunil), but that's a rant for a different forum. Or maybe not. Perhaps our gatherings SHOULD include some definitions of politeness, respect (for instructors or anyone with whom we disagree on the definition of origami), and classroom decorum. But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and where, and when? Dawn