Preface: I don't know how the thread split into two (Andrew, Hank and Ronald in one and Tom in another), but I'm mixing two replies into one here.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:52 PM, <adigg...@comcast.net> wrote: > > One is that origami is an additive art. Folds add to the paper and scoring > subtracts. To me this seems "nitpicky", that is a detail too small to be of > importance. After all both scoring and folding add something to the paper > and we folders use other techniques to make folding easier, wetfolding for > instance and precrease patterns which are collapsed to form a base (if you > find that easier). However the artistic mind is a peculiar one and I can > see how scoring might offend an artist's sensibilities. > I've best heard origami described as a metamorphic art. Painting is additive and sculpture (at least with stone) is subtractive, but with origami you have at the end the same thing you started with, just in a different shape. Scoring, nor any other approach to shaping would seem to go counter to that notion of the art. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Ronald Koh <ron...@singnet.com.sg> wrote: > > > Certain expects of "cheating" in origami seems to be less frowned on now, > in my opinion. With the use of MC, varnish, tweezers, creasing tools, etc > more used now, why not scoring tools and g**e. I would consider Methylcellulose and other stiffeners different from other glues. If we accept origami as a metamorphic art, MC, while technically added to the piece, doesn't contribute to the shape, it only secures it. While other glues can be used for that purpose as well, when they are used to attach other elements to the paper (googly-eyes, for instance) that would seem to shift the nature of the art toward an additive direction. The line is blurred a little with modular pieces with weak locks being supplemented with glue, but the basic notion would seem to hold. Ben Fritzson
