Hi everyone, Laura, your observation is pretty interesting. I agree with you that we can certainly do something (and a lot) to spread awareness of Origami, and by doing so we will undoubtedly contribute to changing its perception, because by spreading awareness we will indirectly stimulate other actions (whether further research, developments, or modifications...) and all this will contribute to changing its perception. That said, however, I would not want our intention to be, from the outset, to change its perception in the sense of Art, because otherwise, once again, we will be the ones elevating it to the level of Art, ourselves from within, as "stakeholders" involved and interested.
Tung Ken, thank you for your valuable contribution, but I must admit that I am rather put off by your repeated quoting of other people's words, perhaps out of context. I cannot engage in discussion in this way. I would have much preferred you Tung Ken, to express your well-argued and explained opinion, to tell me (with your words) why you think Origami is a technique for making art, or even why you think it should be promoted from “technique” directly to “art form” (as you showed us happened with photography). However, I am also aware that this discussion is seen as philosophical musing, and probably seems tedious and pointless to most people. And I admit that is quite true. Nevertheless, I would urge caution when elevating Origami to Art with such force because there is to me a great difference between creating and folding (even beautiful) Origami and creating Art. The process of creating Art involves a wide variety of aspects that must be found in folding Origami, before everything else. I don't think it's appropriate to attribute artistic value to Origami _regardless_ because of the risk of distorting the nature of Origami in itself. It has always been for us an exciting creative (and no, not everything that is creative is Art) and performative technique, and I really wouldn't see this distorted by the desire to see Art (maybe by people who have never been involved in any artistic context in their lives). As a technique, it has enormous potential, and its evolution, in my opinion, should be free from artistic expectations. For some of us, it is a way of making Art, yes absolutely, but that does not mean that Origami is Art regardless. We might tend to see Origami as Art because Origami seems fantastic to us, and the acritical association between ‘Beautiful’ and ‘Art’ is widespread. For many people out there, the sculptor who carves garden gnomes and sells them at the local market is an artist. It is also possible that we unconsciously fail to understand why others don't like Origami, and so we force ourselves to define it as Art to give it a "universal" value, according to which it should be recognized as something valuable. Contemporary man is increasingly less humble and more pretentious, and realizing that Origami doesn't mean much to other people... can be hurtful. I like calling things by their proper name, because words are very important, and if you use them wisely, you have an excellent chance of continuing to appreciate, value, and develop what you've called by its proper name, free from malice and exploitation, often stemming from the egos of individuals. If we "spoil" ourselves by thinking of ourselves as artists or frequenters of an artistic context... in my opinion we are not doing any good to ourselves and to Origami. Lorenzo On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 17:48, Tung Ken Lam <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > I do not know any non-origami art people who say that origami is art. > > Some origami people like Eric Kenneway argued persuasively that origami is > not ‘Art-with-a-capital-A’. Dave Mitchell also said that origami is not > art, but “if I fold paper in order to satisfy my aesthetic sense (because I > find process of folding paper, or the result of that process, beautiful) > then that is indeed art, and art of the purest kind.” > https://www.origamiheaven.com/abrieftheoryofart.htm > > I think George Hart’s observations about ‘math art’ could apply equally to > origami: > > “[the accepted art authorities judge] much of what is presented in our art > exhibitions and publications is not truly ‘fine art.’ The sad truth is that > no experts from these organizations are rushing over to our mathematical > art exhibitions and being impressed by what they find. We must admit that > in terms of their culturally accepted notions of art, something is lacking. > ... > > [the works] of the math/art community are largely craft, design, models, > and visualization, not fine art. ... > > To reconcile these issues, perhaps what we call an ‘Art Exhibition’ should > be rebranded as something like ‘Exhibition of Mathematical Art, Craft, > Design, Models, and Visualization.’ ... > Beyond any benefits of self-honesty, this labelling might aid us in > appearing more modest to any fine art communities that consider our > math/art to be below their artistic standards ” > > Regards, > Tung Ken > > > > -- Lorenzo Lucioni Duesseldorf - Germany [email protected]
