I would like to echo everything that Madonna says. The way I see it is origami can be a technique or medium (depending on how exactly you interpret the words) for creating art, but not everything that's origami will be art. (But then not everything that's painted will be art either.)
But to add examples: there are a number of curators aware of artistic merit of various origami and origami-based work; in addition to Meher McArthur, there are reputable museums whose staff have organized origami-centered exhibitions or included origami in their permanent collections (MOMA in New York has work by the Demaines; Asian Art Museum in San Francisco put up a brief exhibition a few years ago featuring work by Robert Lang, Linda Mihara and myself), and there are other examples. Ruth Asawa's life work was just featured in a retrospective exhibition at SFMOMA and is traveling to New York next. The exhibition includes both paper and metal sculptures based on simple origami tessellations. The value is not in the pattern, but in what is done with it. (For comparison, she alone is probably to credit with making wire crochet into a sculptural art form. It's not the mechanics of the technique that makes art. It's what's done with it.) For another parallel, ceramics has a long tradition as craft, but also contains modern art-craft trends where not all the pieces need to be functional. Similarly with basketry, especially in Japan there are many examples of abstract, nonfunctional "baskets" that are more modern art objects than anything else. But it doesn't always end up classified as art. Many more examples along the same lines: weaving and other "fiber arts", etc. In the "high craft" communities (not a precise term) there aren't many examples of origami, but there are some: among the artists shortlisted for the Loewe Foundation Craft Prize in 2024 was Luis Santos Montes with a piece "Cristalizacion Organica Esmeralda", which is origami in the style of Le Crimp. Are such works of craft that Loewe Foundation judges to be high quality also art? I would find it hard to say they are not. It is up to us, individual artists/craftspeople to change the image (if that's something you want to do) and spread the word about the possibility of expression using origami. It may or may not help to call it origami, but I've never shied away from the term. I've had work regularly in galleries side-by-side with "mainstream" art all over the San Francisco Bay Area--both in juried exhibitions and in those where the gallery owners or curators invited artists to participate. The work I've shown has sold no worse than many other types of 2d or 3d art and I have people who come back regularly to see my shows and buy more pieces (I hesitate to call them "collectors"). I haven't noticed a difference between when I've used the word origami and when I haven't. (But I have on many occasions been asked "That's not origami, is it?" and most of the time I felt the question was motivated by the feeling that the person asking saw more in the work than they expected to be possible using origami. Again, it's not the individual folds, or the fact that it's all done by folding; it's the result that counts. You do get an occasional "so it's just paper?", but what can you do...) Anyway, apologies if this comes off as a rant; it's been brewing for a while Goran On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > I think that there are plenty of curators and arts organizations that > recognize origami as art, but that doesn't mean that all origami is art or > even that all well-made origami is art. > > As far as the Associated Artists of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh Society > of Artists are concerned, my origami tessellations are art. > These are both very selective groups of artists that jury in new members > and have several shows throughout the year. > I was accepted the first time I applied to both of these groups (many > artists try for years to get in) and I've sold work at their shows and > reliably get accepted to their curated group shows. > > I'm still working on getting into the Three Rivers Arts Festival, but > there's usually at least two other origami art booths there so it's not > like they're opposed to origami. > I have seen exclusionary language around origami in an art festival > application once, but it was clear that the organizers didn't know the > current scope of the origami field. > One of the most common questions I get when people see my tessellations > for the first time is "Surely that's too complicated to still be called > origami, right?", so there does seem to be an association in the general > public between "origami" and "simple folding for kids", but a growing > number of curators (notably Meher McArthur) are treating origami as a fine > art medium. > > I don't think that origami as a whole can be considered art or not art — > only individual pieces made with origami techniques can have that label > applied. > > Happy folding, > Madonna Yoder > > > On Sep 11 2025, at 11:48 am, Tung Ken Lam via Origami < > [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 >> >> >> >> >>
