Hi all, I was pondering a terminology question recently, and thought it might be a good one to throw out to this group to get opinions.
Background: as many of you may know, I think it's important to distinguish between the artistry in the _design_ of an origami artwork, and the artistry that is brought to bear in the _physical rendering_ of the folded object. In the world of music, we make that distinction between the _composition_ of a work, and the _performance_ of the work. Both activities require artistry, but of a different sort. For that reason, I've often referred to my designs as "compositions" and the designer as the "composer." Yes, there are perfectly good words "design" and "designer" out there already, but I don't think those quite carry the artistic sense that, I think, applies to many origami designs/compositions. By analogy: it would seem a little weird to refer to Sibelius and Tchaikovsky as the "designers" of their musical works. (There is a whiff of "_mere_ designers" in that usage.) Similarly, I've come to the conclusion that oftentimes, referring to an origami artist as a "designer" doesn't fully capture what they do. (And this isn't a slam against designers. Jony Ive and Yves Behar are brilliant designers. I'm just saying that what origami artist-designers do is closer to what musicians do than to what they do, IMHO.) Anyhow, so I've gotten comfortable calling origami designs "compositions" and their creators "composers." (Even though I backslide occasionally.) But that now raises the question of what we call the other half of the creative act: what word do we use for the physical artwork, and what do we call the person who folds it? Some options I've considered: Object: a "rendering." Person: the "renderer" or "folder". To me, these sound even more cold and clinical and art-less than "design" and "designer". Very unsatisfactory. Object: the "artwork." Person: the "artist." This certainly comes closest to capturing the art-iness I'm after, but it also seems to then exclude the composer from being an artist, and excludes the composition from being an artwork. Whereas, in my view, BOTH the composition and performance are artworks, just of a different type. Which brings me to: Object: the "performance." Person: the "performer." Which, perhaps, captures the sense I'm after, but no one outside of the origami world (and probably many within) will think that those words apply to origami. How about another existing origami term: Object: a "model." Person: the "modeler." I really, really don't like using the term "model" to describe an origami artwork. (And I am not alone in this among origami artists.) A "model" is what you make _on the way to an artwork._ It's the thing you throw away when you're done with the "real" art. (I know of at least one origami artist who uses "model" as a term of disparagement.) And the sense of "he/she's not really an artist" is really strongly conveyed by the title "modeler." (Again, I'm not dissing modelers; I've worked with some phenomenally talented modelers on commercial gigs who do things I couldn't come close to. I'm just saying it's not the same thing.) All right, if I'm being so persnickety Goldilocks about "this word is too arty but that one is not arty enough," how about: Object: "the physical folded object". Person: "the person who folded the artwork." Which is all fine and precise, but way too long for general usage (e.g., the label on the museum wall). So, here's the place where I throw it open to the list (or at least, those who have waded through this long posting): what do you think we should use as a short, ideally single-word descriptor, of the object and the person, and why? (And to forestall possible derailings of the thread: maybe you don't think origami is an art at all, it's merely a craft. Or you don't think words are important, let's just go fold!. That's all well and fine, of course feel free to express that -- but please change the subject line on your posting, so that this thread -- if it continues at all -- sticks to the stated topic. Thanks!) Looking forward to seeing what people think, Robert
